generate_refactor_scenarios

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

Describes outputs (action plans, effort estimates, risk profiles) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. Since annotations are absent, more behavioral context would improve transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcomes. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequate for a tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema. Describes the type of output (approaches, plans) but could mention return format or structure for better completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description does not add new details beyond the schema, 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?

Clearly states the tool generates migration scenarios for token refactoring with risk assessment, producing three approaches. Distinguishes from sibling tools like execute_migration and analyze_coverage by focusing on scenario planning.

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?

Implies usage for planning B→C token migration by comparing trade-offs. Does not explicitly state when not to use or enumerate alternatives, but context from sibling tools makes the intended use clear.

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