refactor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only mentions 'apply refactoring' and scope detection, but fails to disclose that changes are written, that review/dryRun options exist, or any potential dangers (e.g., irreversible changes). Minimal behavioral 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 sentences, front-loaded with title and purpose, no extraneous information. Efficient but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for scope types.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (cross-file, configurable options), the description is adequate but lacks details on return values, confirmation steps, or the effect of options like dryRun and review. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 75%, and the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'intelligent scope detection' but does not elaborate on parameters. Baseline score is appropriate as schema already does heavy lifting.

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 it applies cross-file refactoring with intelligent scope detection, and lists supported scopes (function, class, module, project). This distinguishes it from single-file modification tools like modify_file, though not explicit.

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 implies usage for cross-file refactoring tasks but does not specify when to prefer this tool over siblings like modify_file or validate_changes. No when-not-to-use or exclusions provided.

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