convert_anonymous_to_lambda

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a text edit, not modifies the file directly, and uses zero-based coordinates. It could explicitly state it is non-destructive, but the return behavior is clear.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence and separate sections for usage, output, and requirements. It is concise without being terse, though slight trimming of redundancy (e.g., repeating 'zero-based') could improve efficiency.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains input coordinates, the functional interface requirement, the output nature (text edit), and the prerequisite. It does not cover error cases, but the core usage is well-covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that line and column should point to the 'new' keyword of the anonymous class, which is not stated in the schema (which only says 'zero-based line number'). This extra context helps the agent correctly position the cursor.

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 converts an anonymous class implementing a functional interface to a lambda expression. It uses a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('anonymous class'), and this purpose is distinct from all sibling tools, which cover various analyses and refactorings.

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 explicit usage guidance: position cursor on the 'new' keyword, the anonymous class must be a functional interface, and load_project must be called first. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the conditions are clear and sufficient.

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