encapsulate_field

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that edits are returned as text and must be applied by the caller ('apply them yourself'), that warnings come from JDT's condition checking, and that coordinates are zero-based. It lacks permission/scope or reversibility notes, so not a 5.

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 labeled sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, IMPORTANT) front-load the purpose and make scanning easy with zero filler sentences. The OUTPUT paragraph is dense but earns its place by describing a structure with no output schema.

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?

For a mutation/refactoring tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical gaps: output shape (editsByFile, text edits, warnings), the prerequisite (load_project), and the coordinate convention. It could say more about cross-file side effects, but the essentials are present.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters including getterName/setterName defaults. The description only restates 'position on the field name' and 'optionally name the accessors,' adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Encapsulate a field') and immediately defines the mechanics: 'generate a getter/setter pair and rewrite all direct accesses (in this and other files) to go through them.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rename_symbol, extract_method, or inline_method.

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?

'USAGE: Position on the field name; optionally name the accessors' tells the agent how to invoke it, and 'Requires load_project to be called first' gives a concrete prerequisite. It does not name a when-not condition or an explicit alternative refactoring, so it falls short of a 5.

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