sally_refactor

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds key details: output is markdown, code is never stored or trained on, usage limits (one free use/month). No contradictions.

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?

Description is efficient: clear purpose sentence, usage directive, privacy guarantee, read-only note, and premium tier info. Every sentence adds unique value without 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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains output as markdown with before/after code. It covers privacy, behavior, and usage limits, making it complete for a simple 2-parameter tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add extra detail about lang or content beyond what the schema provides, 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 the tool performs refactoring with concrete before/after code and explains why original code is poor. It distinguishes from siblings like sally_roast (roasting) and sally_explain (explaining) by focusing on code improvement.

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 'Use when the user wants code improved, cleaned up, simplified, or modernized.' Provides clear context but no explicit alternative suggestions or when-not-to-use flags.

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