extractMethodEvaluate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing any behavioral traits (e.g., does it modify anything? requires lock? returns result?). This is severely lacking.

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 (one sentence), but it is under-specified. It earns its place by being short, but it sacrifices informativeness. A balanced description would be both concise and substantive.

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?

No output schema, no prerequisites or behavioral details. The description fails to convey what the tool returns or how it fits into the refactoring workflow. Given the complexity of refactoring tools, this is incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the parameter names and basic types, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it evaluates an extract method refactoring, distinguishing it from sibling tools like extractMethodExecute and extractMethodPreview. However, it could be more specific about what 'evaluate' entails (e.g., checks feasibility, returns analysis).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extractMethodExecute or extractMethodPreview. The description does not provide any context about the intended usage scenario.

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