Optimize Migration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says 'review-only' and 'Return ... recommendations,' which signals a non-mutating, analysis-oriented tool. However, it does not disclose output limits' behavior, potential errors, or any side effects beyond that, leaving moderate gaps.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior ('Return bounded, review-only recommendations') and then adds the evidence source, making it appropriately sized and efficiently structured.

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 three parameters, zero parameter descriptions, no annotations, and a large sibling set, this description is insufficient for correct invocation. It does not explain the optional parameters, nor does it clarify how this tool differs from related migration-planning or analysis tools, despite having an output schema to cover return shapes.

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 for the opaque parameters. It only hints at 'regression evidence,' loosely mapping to the required regression_report, but gives no meaningful explanation of limits or candidate_runs. The agent cannot infer what shapes or semantics those optional parameters expect.

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 clear verb ('Return') and resource ('bounded, review-only recommendations') tied to 'observed regression evidence,' so an agent can infer the tool produces evidence-based suggestions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like analyze_regressions or generate_migration_plan, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool should be used when a regression report is available and review-only recommendations are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives among the many migration-related siblings, so the guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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