ruvltra_code_refactor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the key guarantee of preserving behavior, but omits other important behaviors such as whether it modifies files in place, how it handles unsupported languages, rate limits, or whether results are returned asynchronously. Relying on 'refactor' alone leaves too much unstated.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the English-context tip is brief and actionable. Every word contributes.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too many gaps: language format, timeout semantics, instruction expectations, and operational side effects are all unaddressed. The output schema helps with return shape, but the input contract is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensx for undocumented parameters. It makes 'code' and 'instruction' partially understandable, but 'language' and 'timeoutMs' receive no meaningful explanation. The tip about providing English instructions adds some context, but not enough for four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Refactor code while preserving behavior.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ruvltra_code_fix, ruvltra_code_translate, and ruvltra_code_review by emphasizing behavior-preserving transformation.

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 use whenever code needs restructuring without changing behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The English-language tip is useful for output quality but not for tool selection.

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