plan_refactoring

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

The description states 'Read-only (does not modify files)' which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true). It also discloses the return format: 'Returns JSON: { success, type, edits: [{ file, old_text, new_text }], filesAffected }', providing full behavioral detail beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences cover the action, safety, and usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. The structure is front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, second clarifies read-only, third provides return format and sibling references.

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 11 parameters and 4 refactoring types, the description adequately covers the tool's role and output. However, it does not clarify that many required parameters are conditional on the type (e.g., new_name only for rename), which could be improved. Still, schema descriptions partially compensate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the refactoring types but does not map specific parameters to each type, leaving the agent to infer from the schema. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Preview any refactoring' with specific types (rename, move, extract, signature). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apply_rename, apply_move, change_signature, extract_function by emphasizing it does not apply changes.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use to review the blast radius before calling apply_rename, apply_move, change_signature, or extract_function.' It also states it is read-only, guiding the agent to use it for assessment before action.

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