encapsulate_field

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains behavioral details: output format (editsByFile, warnings, text), zero-based coordinates, and that edits are returned and must be applied manually. This is comprehensive and avoids surprises.

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 concise with 5 sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, usage, output, important note, prerequisite. No waste, front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description adequately explains the output and prerequisite. It covers what the tool does and how to use it, though it could elaborate slightly on what 'direct accesses' entails. Still fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as 'optionally name the accessors' correlating to getterName/setterName. No deep parameter semantics added.

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 explicitly states the tool encapsulates a field by generating getter/setter and rewriting direct accesses. It is a specific refactoring verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling analysis or other refactoring tools.

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 mentions positioning on the field name and optional naming of accessors, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. The prerequisite 'Requires load_project to be called first' is useful context.

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