renameEvaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'evaluates', which suggests a read-only or analysis operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, has side effects, or provides detailed output. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 required parameters.

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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 a rename evaluation tool with 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the evaluation entails, expected outputs, or error conditions, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter (uri, line, startColumn, endColumn). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how these parameters define the object to rename or their interrelationships, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 a rename refactoring' states the action (evaluates) and target (rename refactoring), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'evaluates' entails (e.g., checking feasibility, impact analysis) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview', making it vague but not tautological.

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 such as 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview'. The description implies it's for evaluation but offers no context on prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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