rename_symbol

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, confirming this is a write operation, which aligns with 'Rename' implying mutation. The description adds context by specifying 'using LSP' (Language Server Protocol) and 'throughout codebase', suggesting it performs a global rename. However, it doesn't detail behavioral aspects like permissions needed, error handling, or side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Rename symbol') and includes essential details ('throughout codebase', 'using LSP') without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), annotations cover mutability, and complexity is moderate, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks parameter explanations and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in understanding how to invoke it correctly. It meets basic needs but could be more complete for a mutation tool with undocumented parameters.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions no parameters, leaving all three (name_path, relative_path, new_name) unexplained. This fails to compensate for the low coverage, as users must infer meanings from titles alone without semantic guidance.

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 action ('Rename symbol') and mechanism ('using LSP'), with 'throughout codebase' specifying scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'find_symbol' or 'replace_content' by focusing on symbol renaming rather than searching or general content replacement. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'find_referencing_symbols' or 'replace_content' might be relevant for similar tasks, but the description offers no comparison or context for selection. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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