wincode_plan_refactoring

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does suggest a planning/advisory nature by saying it 'Provides... guidance, step-by-step breakdown, and safety boundaries,' which implies non-mutating behavior. However, it never explicitly states that no code is modified, what permissions are required, or how the guidance is delivered.

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 with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and listing three specific outputs. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 low-complexity tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the overall purpose and expected output categories. However, it doesn't define what 'safety boundaries' mean, how the refactoring plan is returned, or when this tool is preferable to sibling analysis tools, leaving meaningful gaps.

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%, so target and goal are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, relationships, or constraints, making the baseline 3 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 names the resource (refactoring guidance) and scope ('for a component') and lists three concrete deliverables: structured guidance, step-by-step breakdown, and safety boundaries. The verb 'Provides' is generic, and it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like analyze_change_impact, but the purpose is still understandable.

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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as wincode_analyze_change_impact or wincode_diagnose_project. There are no prerequisites, no excluded cases, and no conditional selection criteria; the only hint is 'for a component,' which leaves usage context largely implicit.

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