extractMethodEvaluate

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 states the tool 'evaluates' but doesn't clarify what this entails—whether it's a read-only analysis, a simulation, or has side effects. It omits critical details like permissions required, output format (e.g., success/failure, error messages, or refactoring suggestions), or any rate limits. For a tool with potential code modification implications, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse and under-specified for a tool that likely involves complex refactoring logic. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, lacking the depth needed for a tool of this nature. It's front-loaded but doesn't provide enough substance to be fully helpful.

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 complexity of refactoring tools, the absence of annotations and output schema, and the description's vagueness, this tool is inadequately documented. The description doesn't explain what 'evaluation' outputs (e.g., a report, warnings, or feasibility score), leaving agents guessing about results. With sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' and 'extractMethodPreview', more context is needed to differentiate and use this tool effectively in a development workflow.

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% description coverage, with 'uri' and 'range' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'range' represents in refactoring context or format examples). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to enhance understanding of how parameters relate to the evaluation process.

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 'Evaluates an extract method refactoring' is a tautology that restates the tool name 'extractMethodEvaluate' without adding meaningful context. It mentions 'extract method refactoring' but doesn't specify what evaluation entails (e.g., checking feasibility, analyzing impacts, or generating previews). While it hints at a software refactoring context, it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' or 'extractMethodPreview'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid code range), related tools like 'extractMethodExecute' for implementation, or scenarios where evaluation is appropriate (e.g., before committing to a refactoring). Without such context, an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for effective decision-making.

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