renameEvaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Evaluates' suggests a read-only analysis, but the description doesn't confirm if this is safe (non-destructive), what permissions might be required, or what the evaluation entails (e.g., checking feasibility, showing previews). It lacks details on rate limits, side effects, or output format, leaving critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 overly concise to the point of under-specification—a single phrase that fails to convey necessary information. While brief, it lacks front-loaded clarity and doesn't earn its place by adding value; it merely restates the tool name without elaboration. This isn't effective conciseness but rather insufficient detail.

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 the complexity of a rename evaluation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'evaluates' means, what the output might include (e.g., success indicators, warnings), or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely assesses code changes, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively.

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 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all four parameters (uri, line, startColumn, endColumn). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how these parameters define the rename target or their interrelationships. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 'Evaluates a rename refactoring' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'renameEvaluate' without specifying what 'evaluates' means in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview', nor does it clarify what resource is being evaluated (e.g., code changes, feasibility, impact). The purpose remains vague beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'renameExecute' or 'renamePreview', nor does it specify prerequisites, context (e.g., before executing a rename), or exclusions. Without any usage context, an agent cannot determine when this tool is appropriate compared to other rename-related tools.

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