Get an Angular Signal Forms migration recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: this tool never modifies your files.' Beyond that, it adds a valuable behavioral edge case: unknown constructs return found:false plus available constructs and are never an error, which is more informative than standard error expectations. This exceeds the baseline set by the annotations.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the edge case and a read-only guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, and no irrelevant information is included.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter lookup tool with a known input shape and an output schema. The description covers behavior, unknown-input handling, and side-effect safety, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. The output schema handles the return-value details, and the description covers the rest.

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%, so the parameter is already well documented. The description's examples ('FormControl', 'FormBuilder.group', 'Validators.required') mirror the schema's own examples and do not add new semantic depth. The description adds only a mild connection between the parameter and the resulting recipe concept, which keeps this at the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Returns a verified before/after migration recipe for a single Reactive Forms construct.' It also gives concrete examples ('FormControl', 'FormBuilder.group', 'Validators.required') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting a single construct lookup rather than scanning, analysis, or reporting. This makes it unambiguous which tool an agent should select.

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 clearly implies the use case: looking up a recipe for a specific Reactive Forms construct. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the examples and single-construct scope make it evident as a lookup tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like find_form_candidates or verify_migration instead, leaving a small gap.

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