refactor_with

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool refactors code but does not disclose whether it returns the refactored code, modifies in place, requires authentication, or what side effects may occur. This is a significant gap for a code-transformation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Refactor code'), and includes the optional goal parameter. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is minimal and fails to explain the return value or behavior of the tool. With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the user receives after invoking the tool, but it does not. It also does not mention that an agent must be chosen, relying on the schema to convey this. The agent is left without essential context for a code-refactoring operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions and enums, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no meaningful information beyond restating that a goal can be specified, which is already enumerated in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics completely.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Refactor code using a specific agent.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like debug_with and explain_with by the task type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from all siblings, such as delegate_task or review_code, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delegate_task or ask_agent. It implies use for refactoring but does not mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks, leaving the agent without strategic direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.