inline_variable

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

The description discloses that it modifies files and returns a success status with changed files, but it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or limitations (e.g., how it handles variable shadowing or dynamic references). Without annotations, the description carries the burden and only partially fulfills it.

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 structured with Args/Returns sections and is concise, containing no redundant information. However, it could be slightly streamlined by integrating parameter descriptions inline.

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?

For a refactoring tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the action, inputs, and return. It does not cover error scenarios or scope limitations, but it is generally complete for its complexity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides meaningful parameter descriptions (e.g., 'project_path: Root directory', 'line: 1-based line number'), adding essential context beyond the property names and types.

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 'Inline a variable at all usage sites', which is a specific refactoring action on a variable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rename_symbol and extract_method, which have different purposes.

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 alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where inlining is inappropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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