extractMethodPreview

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 'previews' an extract method refactoring, implying a read-only or simulation operation, but does not detail behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the description earns its place by conveying essential information succinctly.

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 tool's complexity (a single parameter with full schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not provide behavioral context or usage guidelines. For a refactoring preview tool, more detail on outcomes or constraints would enhance completeness, but it meets the basic threshold.

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 the single parameter 'proposal' documented as 'The extract method proposal.' The description does not add meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on the parameter's format, content, or usage. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'previews an extract method refactoring,' which indicates a specific action (preview) on a specific resource (extract method refactoring). However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools like 'extractMethodEvaluate' and 'extractMethodExecute,' making it vague about its unique role. The purpose is clear but not distinct enough for optimal agent selection.

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 does not mention sibling tools (e.g., 'extractMethodEvaluate' or 'extractMethodExecute') or specify contexts for previewing versus evaluating or executing. This absence leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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