assess_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: returns per-target costs, savings, payback, and caveats (e.g., 'OCI A1.Flex is ARM — verify your AMIs'). This is transparent about the output including warnings, but doesn't explicitly state that it is read-only or idempotent.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses short sentences to list inputs and outputs. It includes a memorable analogy ('half-built spreadsheet') without wasting words.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, key inputs, and important outputs like caveats. It lacks details on output structure and default behavior for the 'targets' parameter, but is generally complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's utility.

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 low at 20%. The description lists broad input categories (compute, storage, etc.) and gives a high-level overview of output dimensions, but does not explain specific parameters like snapshot_incremental_factor or the structure of egress items. It adds some context but not enough to fully compensate for the schema gaps.

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 purpose: 'Project cross-cloud cost + payback for moving a workload away from its source cloud.' It lists specific inputs and outputs, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as an integrated FinOps assessment that replaces a spreadsheet.

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 for cost comparison scenarios but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like compare_workload or total_cost_of_ownership. There are no exclusion criteria or guidance on prerequisite data preparation.

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