migrate_v1_to_v2

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. While it mentions analysis for migration issues, it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (though an output schema exists), potential side effects, or performance considerations. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, migration analysis), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage or behavioral details. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, preventing a lower score.

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 undocumented parameters. It doesn't explain what 'code', 'target', or 'apply_fixes' mean, their expected formats, or how they interact. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Analyze a snippet or model source for common Pydantic v1-to-v2 migration issues.' It specifies the verb (analyze), resource (snippet/model source), and scope (Pydantic v1-to-v2 migration issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_validation_modes' or 'explain_model', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for migration analysis, or how it differs from siblings like 'inspect_type' or 'validate_data'. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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