rename_obfuscated_variables

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: it copies source (not in-place), applies renames, adds changelog comments, and generates a log. The explicit 'NEVER modifies business logic' provides a strong safety guarantee. However, it does not mention potential overwriting of target files, error handling, or edge cases such as missing line numbers.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary actions, and includes a concise safety warning. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main workflow and side effects (copy, rename, comment, log) and includes a critical safety constraint. Lacking an output schema, it doesn't describe return values, but it mentions the rename log as an artifact. It could benefit from explicitly stating prerequisites (e.g., source must be mavenized) and relationship to sibling tools, but overall is sufficiently complete for a specialized operation.

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 fully documents all parameters including the renames array structure, sourceDir, targetDir, and logPath. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details, remaining at the baseline of 3.

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 tool's function with specific verbs: copies mavenized source, applies obfuscated variable renames, adds changelog comments, and generates a rename log. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decompile_jar or compile_maven_project, which focus on different pipeline stages.

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 implies usage within a deobfuscation pipeline ('Copies mavenized source') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It notes 'NEVER modifies business logic,' which hints at safe usage, but lacks explicit guidance like 'use this after mavenization' or 'prefer run_ast_deobfuscation_pipeline for full handling.'

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