optimize_migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that results are 'review-only' and 'bounded', which adds meaningful safety and scope context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain side effects, permissions, failure modes, or behavior when optional inputs like limits or candidate_runs are omitted.

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 no filler: it states the verb, output type, key constraints, and input source. It is appropriately concise, though it errs on the side of under-specification rather than excessive detail.

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?

Even though an output schema exists and reduces the need to describe return values, the tool still has three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and numerous closely related sibling tools. The one-sentence description does not provide enough context for an agent to confidently construct a call or choose this tool over alternatives.

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 explicitly map any of the three parameters to their roles. 'Observed regression evidence' loosely suggests the required regression_report, and 'bounded' hints at limits, but this is not enough to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('recommendations from observed regression evidence'), with useful qualifiers like 'bounded' and 'review-only'. It is not a tautology and gives the agent a clear sense of what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as analyze_regressions or generate_migration_plan.

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 'from observed regression evidence' implies when the tool should be used, and 'review-only' suggests it is for non-mutating review rather than execution. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternative sibling tools, so the agent must infer routing from context.

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