extract_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool determines parameters and return type, generates method signature and call site, and emphasizes zero-based coordinates. This sufficiently discloses behavioral traits, though it could mention error handling or side effects.

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 and well-structured: a one-line summary, clear USAGE and OUTPUT labels, bullet points for analysis details, and a prominent note about zero-based coordinates. Every sentence serves a purpose, and key information is 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?

For a refactoring tool with 6 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers usage, output format, behavioral analysis, coordinate system, and prerequisites. It lacks details on error conditions or return value structure, but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct tool invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining how parameters (e.g., selection range and method name) are used in the analysis and output generation. This goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions, providing deeper semantic meaning.

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 'Extract a code block into a new method,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_constant or extract_variable by focusing on method extraction. Additional details about analyzing variables and return types reinforce the purpose.

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 a usage line ('Select code range, provide method name') and a prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first'). However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like extract_constant or inline_method, nor does it mention conditions to avoid using it.

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