rename_function

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal insight. 'Rename a function' implies a mutation operation but doesn't specify permissions needed, side effects (e.g., whether it updates references), error conditions, or what happens with an empty 'new_name'. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies data.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted text. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity contributes to its inadequacy in other dimensions.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'rename' entails (e.g., does it affect cross-references?), what the result looks like, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., 'Address of the function to rename', 'New name for the function (empty for a default name)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

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 'Rename a function' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling renaming tools like 'rename_global_variable' or 'rename_local_variable', nor does it clarify what type of function is being renamed (e.g., decompiled function, imported function, etc.).

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing function), exclusions, or how it differs from other renaming tools in the sibling list, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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