renameEvaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't indicate if this is a read-only analysis, what permissions are needed, whether it has side effects, or what the output entails (e.g., success/failure, error messages). The term 'evaluates' suggests analysis but lacks operational 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 zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its minimal content, though this conciseness comes at the cost of clarity and completeness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., validation results, preview data) or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its function.

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%, providing clear parameter documentation (URI, line, startColumn, endColumn). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain how these parameters relate to rename evaluation (e.g., identifying the target symbol). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does 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 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' is tautological—it restates the tool name 'renameEvaluate' without specifying what evaluation entails (e.g., checking feasibility, previewing changes, or validating impacts). It lacks a clear verb-resource distinction, making it vague compared to siblings like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview'.

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 like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview'. The description implies evaluation but doesn't specify prerequisites, context (e.g., before executing a rename), or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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