refactory_extract

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'routes to the cheapest capable free LLM API', which hints at external dependency and cost optimization but lacks details on failure modes, destructive nature, or prerequisites (e.g., internet access). Essential transparency is missing for a tool that invokes an external service.

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, each contributing some information. The second sentence about routing could be integrated into behavioral context but is not excessive. However, the first sentence could be more precise (e.g., 'Extract one module from the monolith following the given decomposition plan'). Still, it is reasonably concise with no filler.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output of extraction is (e.g., new files, modified directory structure, or return value), nor does it clarify the role of the plan parameter. A user would need to guess the tool's behavior beyond the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the guidelines, with high schema coverage, baseline is 3; no extra value from description.

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 extracts a module from a monolith according to a plan, which is a specific verb+resource combo. It distinguishes from siblings like refactory_decompose (which creates the plan) and refactory_analyze (which analyzes). The mention of routing to an LLM API is tangential but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sibling tools like refactory_analyze or refactory_fix_imports). The phrase 'according to the plan' implies it should follow refactory_decompose, but no clear context or exclusions are provided.

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