Suggest a file split (refactor prompt)

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

Description confirms readOnlyHint annotation with 'Read-only — the server never edits code'. Adds that the output is a ready-to-execute proposal for Claude. Does not contradict annotations. Provides behavioral context beyond annotations by detailing output and execution responsibility.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. First sentence covers core functionality and output; second adds read-only note. No redundant words. 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?

Given no output schema, description adequately describes return content: symbols, modules, barrel guidance, prompt. References sibling tool for input. Does not cover error cases, but overall complete for typical usage. Could be slightly more explicit about prerequisites.

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 50% (file parameter described, project not). Description mentions 'oversized source file' but does not explain the project parameter or provide parameter-level details beyond the schema. Lacks compensation for undocumented project parameter, resulting in inadequate 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?

Clearly states the tool accepts an oversized source file and returns a structured refactor proposal. Distinguishes from siblings by being a read-only proposal generator that hands off execution to Claude. References code_file_map tool, differentiating it from other code tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for oversized files with splitCandidates from code_file_map. Clarifies that the server never edits code, so the tool is for proposing not executing. Implicitly tells not to use for direct edits. Provides clear context for integration with other tools.

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