roslyn:rename_symbol

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

With no annotations, the description covers safety (semantic analysis), preview mode, coordinate system, and output defaults. It discloses behavioral traits like always previewing and zero-based inputs. Could mention limitations (e.g., cross-assembly renaming constraints) but is reasonably transparent.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states core purpose, then preview mode warning, coordinate system explanation, and default values. No redundant or irrelevant 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 tool's complexity (renaming across solution, 7 parameters, no output schema), the description explains the process and parameter usage effectively. It mentions preview output shows files with summary verbosity but doesn't detail the return structure or potential failure modes (e.g., ambiguous symbol). 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%, but the description adds significant value: explains importance of preview, zero-based coordinates, default maxFiles (20), and verbosity options with token counts. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb (rename), resource (symbol), scope (entire solution), and method (semantic analysis). It distinguishes from sibling tools like change_signature or extract_method by specifying it renames symbols safely across the solution.

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 explicit usage tips: 'always preview first!' and 'Uses ZERO-BASED coordinates'. Also explains defaults for maxFiles and verbosity. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for simple text replacements) or compare to alternatives.

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