suggest_refactoring

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool analyzes and suggests, implying read-only, but does not disclose any side effects, authorization needs, or potential limitations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists the tool's capabilities without waste.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or what 'suggest' yields (e.g., list of suggestions, inline changes). This leaves the agent guessing about the output.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter filePath, with a clear schema description. The tool description adds context about the operation but no additional meaning to the parameter itself.

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 the tool analyzes a PHP file and suggests refactoring opportunities, listing specific types like extract methods and reduce complexity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on scaffolding or specific validation.

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 when to use (when refactoring is desired) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to sibling analysis tools like detect_framework_violations or inspect_file.

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