Propose function names from embedded qualified-name strings that exactly one function references. Candidates are labeled 'proposed' at 0.55 confidence for review.
Propose names from embedded qualified-name strings (e.g. 'CS::FieldArea::IsEnableFastTravel') referenced by exactly one function. Labels land as 'proposed' at confidence 0.55 for review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| build | No | ||
| dry_run | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the effect: labels land as 'proposed' at confidence 0.55 for review. However it says nothing about whether the tool mutates persistent state, what dry_run (default true) actually does, or any permission requirements.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and effect. The inline example earns its space by clarifying what a 'qualified-name string' looks like. Minor verbosity only.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries the full burden. It adequately covers the outcome (proposed labels at 0.55) but omits parameter meaning and mutation scope, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to close.
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 0% and neither of the two parameters (build, dry_run) is mentioned in the description. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters, so the agent cannot tell what values belong in either field.
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?
States a specific verb ('Propose names') and resource ('embedded qualified-name strings') with a concrete example, so the agent understands it's a batch harvest, not a single manual proposal. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like propose_label or review_label, which is the only gap.
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 qualifier 'referenced by exactly one function' implies a usage condition for eligible strings, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over propose_label or review_label. Usage is inferred from the description rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.