extractMethodPreview

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

The description explicitly says 'Still nothing written' and frames the tool as a preview before agreeing, which adds meaningful no-side-effect context beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations. It also tells agents what they will be able to inspect before committing.

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 short and front-loads the workflow position and purpose. The first clause is grammatically awkward, but every sentence contributes necessary context.

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 one-parameter read-only preview tool, the description covers what the feature is, what input it expects, what it shows, and that it writes nothing. It does not specify the response format, but no output schema exists and the description still gives enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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 documents the proposal parameter as the extract method proposal returned by extractMethodEvaluate, so description coverage is high. The phrase 'evaluation you pass back in' adds workflow emphasis but not much new parameter meaning.

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 identifies the tool as the second step of extract-method and says it exposes the edits, new signature, and changed call site. It lacks a clean verb like 'shows' or 'previews', but the resource and refactoring context are clear.

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?

Calling it the 'second step' and saying the input comes from the evaluation you pass back in clearly places it after extractMethodEvaluate,infer that it should be used before agreeing to the refactoring. It does not explicitly name extractMethodExecute as the follow-up, but the sequence is strongly implied.

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