renameEvaluate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is written.' It adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool actually does: resolves the symbol at the position and gathers its usages for planning. This goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the tool's role in the rename flow, what it does, and the follow-up tools. The key differentiator is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple read-only planning tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, that no changes are made, and where it fits in the rename workflow. No additional information is needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds only the contextual notion that uri/line/startColumn/endColumn identify 'the symbol at this position,' which is helpful but not substantially more than the schema provides.

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 identifies the operation: it asks the system to resolve the symbol at a given position and locate its usages to plan a rename. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by positioning itself as the first of the three rename steps, making differentiation trivial.

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 names the exact sequence — renameEvaluate, then renamePreview, then renameExecute — and notes that nothing is written, which implies it is the safe planning phase. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the step ordering provides strong routing guidance.

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