Run Rector (Automated Refactoring)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that dryRun=false is used (implying file modification) and requires a config file, but does not elaborate on side effects, required permissions, or what changes are made. It supplements annotations but does not deeply disclose behavior.

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 very concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. While it could include more context, it is efficient and avoids wasted words.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description leaves out details about output format, error handling, or post-run effects. However, annotations partially compensate (e.g., destructive hint). The tool is relatively simple, so the description is minimally acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 all parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds minimal value beyond reinforcing that dryRun=false is used. Given high schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 that the tool applies automatic refactoring using Rector with dryRun=false, and requires a 'rector.php' configuration file. This differentiates it from siblings like 'suggest_refactoring' and provides specific, actionable information.

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 implies use for automated refactoring but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., suggest_refactoring) or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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