extract_method

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool returns JSON with success status and changed files, but omits important traits like whether the selection is replaced with a method call, or effects on imports.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args list and Returns section. No redundant sentences; every line adds value.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return description is sufficient. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects on original code) and fails to differentiate usage from sibling refactoring tools, making it only partially complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description explains each parameter (e.g., 'Start line (1-based)', 'Root directory of the Python project'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema types, though some details (e.g., line inclusivity) could be clearer.

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 'Extract a code region as a new method', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from siblings like rename_symbol or move_symbol, which are different refactoring operations.

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 (e.g., inline_variable, convert_module_to_init). There is no mention of prerequisites such as the file being open or the region being valid for extraction.

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