renamePreview

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 this is a preview operation, which suggests it's non-destructive and read-only, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or describe what the preview output includes, any side effects, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral details.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely involves complex refactoring operations. It doesn't explain what the preview shows, how it differs from execution, or what the return value might be. For a tool with nested objects and potential behavioral nuances, this minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('renameRefactoring' and 'transport'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'rename refactoring proposal' entails or when 'transport' is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 'Previews a rename refactoring' clearly states the action (previews) and the resource (rename refactoring), but it's somewhat vague about what 'preview' entails compared to actual execution. It distinguishes from siblings like 'renameExecute' by implying this is a preview rather than execution, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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 like 'renameExecute' or 'renameEvaluate'. The description implies it's for previewing rename operations, but doesn't specify scenarios where a preview is needed versus direct execution or evaluation.

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