verify_refactor_safety

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses important behavior: it is intentionally conservative, treats renames as errors, and checks specific code properties. It does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies code or what its failure/return behavior is, so not a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core purpose, then gives a concise bullet-like list of checks, and ends with an important behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, so the agent is left without a described return shape or success/failure criteria beyond 'renames appear as errors.' The analysis scope is clear, but output semantics are a notable gap for an agent deciding how to act on the result.

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%, and the schema already explains before/after text and language auto-detection. The description adds context about why the inputs matter, but it does not add significant parameter-level semantics beyond 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 gives a specific purpose: perform a semantic diff between old and new code and catch accidental deletions before compilation. It lists concrete checks (function count, signatures, exports, imports, comment ratio), which clearly distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like run_safe_command and run_destructive_command.

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 indicates the usage context: verify a refactor before compilation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the workflow cue is clear and actionable.

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