suggest_refactoring_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies the tool is read-only ('analyzes and suggests') but does not explicitly state lack of side effects, network usage, or permissions. It is adequate but not exemplary.

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, well-formed sentence that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.

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 tool has 2 params, no nested objects, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., file must be part of a project) or what 'mapped to Refactoring Guru' entails, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 both parameters (file_path and problem_description) already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes a local Fortran file and suggests modern design patterns and refactoring options mapped to Refactoring Guru. The verb 'analyzes and suggests' and resource 'Fortran file' are specific, and the mention of Refactoring Guru distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_refactoring or suggest_design_pattern.

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 siblings like suggest_refactoring or suggest_design_pattern. It does not state prerequisites, when not to use, or alternative tools. An agent would have to infer context from the name and description alone, which is insufficient.

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