Create Migration Research Request

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this creates a persistent record, what side effects occur, what permissions are needed, or what the output represents. 'Scan locally' suggests a read-like action, while the tool name implies creation, leaving behavior unclear.

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 short but under-specified. It does not front-load the core purpose or add usable information; the single sentence is more cryptic than concise.

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?

With six parameters, nested objects, an output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, this description is far too incomplete. It omits what a migration research request is, how the parameters relate, when to use it, and what the tool actually accomplishes.

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%, and the description does not clarify any of the six parameters: application, run_id, source, target, as_of, or topics. Phrases like 'locally' and 'user-scoped' are not mapped to the schema, so the agent gets no meaningful parameter 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?

The description contains action verbs ('Scan', 'bound') and hints at an operation on research facts, but it never explicitly says it creates a migration research request or what that entails. It is vague rather than tautological, and it does not distinguish this tool from any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools. 'Scan locally' implies some local scope, but no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided.

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