extractMethodEvaluate

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by explicitly stating 'Nothing is written.' It also explains that the tool only asks the system about feasibility and required variables, making the non-mutating behavior clear. This aligns with the annotations and adds valuable context.

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?

Two short sentences convey the tool's purpose, its non-destructive nature, and its position in a three-step workflow. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a read-only evaluation tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool asks (feasibility and variable inputs/outputs) and that no write occurs. The absence of an output schema is not fully compensated by the description, but the purpose is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 already fully describes both parameters (uri and range) with 100% coverage aid. The description does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline. It reinforces that 'range' is the range to extract, but this is already in the schema.

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 states a clear and specific purpose: assessing whether a range of lines can be extracted into a method and what parameters would be needed. It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the follow-up extractMethodPreview and extractMethodExecute siblings, making the tool's role in a three-step workflow unambiguous.

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 clearly places this tool as the first of three steps in a sequence ('Then extractMethodPreview, then extractMethodExecute'), indicating when it should be used relative to its siblings. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sequential framing provides sufficient usage guidance.

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