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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool produces 'suggestions' (implying non-destructive analysis) and describes the output format as prioritized and step-by-step. However, it does not mention language handling, input requirements, or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand input expectations or output details. It hints at the output format but does not specify required inputs or how the tool behaves, leaving significant gaps for a two-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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining 'code' and 'language', but it does not mention either parameter. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which lacks any field descriptions.

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 'Get prioritized step-by-step refactoring suggestions' clearly states a specific action (get) and resource (refactoring suggestions), with qualifiers that add value. It is distinct from sibling tools (detect_antipatterns, risk_score, etc.) which focus on analysis, not refactoring guidance.

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 the sibling tools, nor are any prerequisites or alternative scenarios mentioned. The description only implies that you use it for refactoring suggestions, but it does not explicitly differentiate it or provide usage context.

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