refactor_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Get guidance,' implying a read-only, non-destructive operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. The description is insufficient for a full behavioral understanding.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary, and it is appropriate for a tool with no parameters. No wasted information.

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 no output schema, few other tools, and zero parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent the phase and action, but lacks details on what the guidance contains or how it is structured. It is complete enough for a simple guidance tool but could be improved with more context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per instructions. The description adds context that the guidance is for the refactor phase, which provides some meaning beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on any potential inputs, which would be unnecessary given no parameters.

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 provides guidance for the WRITE/REFACTOR phase, which is a specific phase. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'setup_guidance' and 'test_guidance' by naming the phase, but the description does not explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 it should be used during the WRITE/REFACTOR phase but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this over other guidance tools.

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