extractMethodEvaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers no information beyond the basic action. It does not describe whether this is a read-only analysis, if it modifies data, what the output might include (e.g., success indicators, error messages, or refactoring details), or any side effects like performance impacts. This is inadequate for a tool with potential refactoring implications.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence—with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's action, though this brevity comes at the cost of clarity and completeness. For conciseness alone, it scores highly due to efficient wording.

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 operations, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'evaluates' means in practice, what results to expect, or how this tool fits into a workflow with siblings like 'extractMethodExecute'. For a tool that likely involves code analysis and potential changes, more contextual detail is needed.

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 clear documentation for both 'uri' and 'range' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as expected formats or usage examples. However, since the schema fully covers the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not detract from but also does not enhance the schema's information.

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 essentially restates the tool name 'extractMethodEvaluate' without adding meaningful specificity. It mentions the action ('evaluates') and domain ('extract method refactoring'), but fails to clarify what evaluation entails (e.g., checking feasibility, analyzing impact, or generating preview) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'extractMethodExecute' and '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 does not indicate whether this is a preliminary step before execution, how it relates to 'extractMethodPreview' or 'extractMethodExecute', or any prerequisites or constraints for its use. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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