extract_constant

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns text edits (rather than applying them), uses zero-based coordinates, and requires a prior load_project. This adequately conveys the behavioral profile, though it could explicitly state the tool is read-only.

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 at 6 sentences and uses line breaks for clarity. It front-loads the main purpose. A minor improvement would be to group related info more tightly, but it is overall efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (6 required params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the operation, return type (text edits), prerequisite, and coordinate detail. It could be more complete by describing the format of the returned edits, but is still sufficient.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing zero-based coordinates and noting that constantName should be UPPER_SNAKE_CASE, which exceeds the schema's basic description.

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 action: 'Extract an expression into a static final constant at class level.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like extract_method and extract_variable.

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 basic usage guidance ('Select expression by providing start and end positions') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'), but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool. With many sibling refactoring tools, more differentiation would be helpful.

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