extractMethodExecute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('executes'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects (e.g., code changes), error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('executes'), making it efficient and easy to parse, though it lacks depth.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'execute' entails (e.g., permanent code changes), success/failure outcomes, or integration with sibling tools, leaving the agent with critical unknowns.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'refactoring' documented as 'The refactoring object.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as what constitutes a valid refactoring object or its structure. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool 'executes an extract method refactoring', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview', leaving the specific role ambiguous within the refactoring workflow.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an evaluated refactoring first), exclusions, or how it fits with siblings like 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodPreview'.

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