roslyn:encapsulate_field

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions conversion and output, but lacks details on whether the tool modifies the file in-place, what the return format is, or how preview mode affects behavior. The zero-based coordinate warning adds useful context.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences covering purpose, usage, output, and an important note. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple refactoring with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and critical coordinate detail. However, it omits what the tool actually returns (e.g., a code action or modified code) and does not mention side effects or preview behavior, leaving minor gaps.

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% (baseline 3). The description adds the 'ZERO-BASED coordinates' emphasis, which is not fully captured in schema descriptions, providing extra value. However, it does not explain the 'preview' parameter or other semantics beyond coordinates.

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 'Convert a field to a property with getter/setter', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'rename_symbol' or 'extract_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?

Provides actionable usage: 'Position cursor on a field declaration' and a critical note about zero-based coordinates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like 'change_signature'.

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