rename_legacy_identifiers

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

Discloses key behaviors: validates scope rules, preserves comments, and builds with compiler flags for correctness. However, it does not detail potential side effects (e.g., file modifications) or requirements (e.g., compiler environment), which are critical given no annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, validation, and verification.

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?

Covers the main aspects: safe renaming, scope validation, comment preservation, and build verification. Since an output schema exists, return values are not required. Missing are parameter format details, but overall adequate.

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 description adds context that 'file_path' is a file and 'mapping' likely maps old to new names, but lacks explicit explanation of the mapping structure (key/value types) despite schema coverage being 0%. The added meaning is minimal.

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?

Describes a specific action: renaming legacy variables across a file scope, with additional details about preserving comments and verifying correctness. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like modernize_file or suggest_refactoring_file.

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?

Implies usage for renaming legacy variables to modern names, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as suggest_refactoring_file or modernize_file. No when-not-to-use or alternative names.

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