create_migration_research_request

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself, but it only mentions that the scan is 'local' and 'user-scoped.' It does not explain what creating a research request entails, side effects, prerequisites, or how the request is processed. The term 'bound' is unclear and could be a typo, further reducing transparency.

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 brevity comes at the cost of meaning. It is a single, cryptic sentence with no structure or front-loaded clarity, and it reads more like an under-specified tagline than an informative definition.

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 complex tool with six parameters, five required fields, nested objects, and an output schema, yet the description provides almost no operational context. It does not explain how to construct the request, what the output represents, or how this relates to the migration workflow. The description is fundamentally inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 parameters, but it mentions none of the six parameters. Terms like 'user-scoped' and 'missing/stale facts' do not map clearly to required fields such as application, run_id, source, target, or as_of. The agent is left entirely to the schema, which lacks 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 uses verbs like 'scan' and 'bound' but never states that the tool creates a migration research request, which is the core action implied by the name. 'Bound explicit user-scoped research to missing/stale facts' is vague and does not clearly identify the resource being acted upon. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like scan_application or validate_research_result.

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 phrase 'missing/stale facts' hints at a trigger condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternatives are named, and there are no exclusion criteria or usage context provided.

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