extract_method

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses behavioral traits: it explains the analysis steps (determining parameters, return type, signature), mentions the output (text edits), and highlights the zero-based coordinate system. No contradictions with annotations.

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 clear sections (USAGE, OUTPUT, bullet points, IMPORTANT). It is front-loaded with the core action and every sentence adds value, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 explains the output format (text edits) and includes prerequisites and special coordinate handling. It covers the tool's analysis steps. Could mention side effects or undo behavior, but is fairly complete for a refactoring tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for its 6 parameters. The description adds value by emphasizing zero-based coordinates and providing high-level context (e.g., that methodName is for the new method). It reinforces schema meaning without redundancy.

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,' using a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_constant and extract_variable, which target different refactoring operations.

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 prerequisite ('Requires load_project to be called first') and usage hints ('Select code range, provide method name'). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity among many sibling refactoring tools.

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