generate_migration_plan

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the multi-step process but does not state whether the tool is read-only, how long it may take, what side effects occur, or what the output format is. The mention of quality gates lacks detail on what triggers them.

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 front-loads the core purpose. It is concise with no wasted words, though a more structured format (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability.

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 (multi-step analysis without output schema), the description lacks important details: output format, duration, prerequisites, and whether it modifies the codebase. It does not reference sibling tools that might be prerequisites or 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema; 'target_framework' is briefly mentioned but not elaborated, and no examples or constraints are provided.

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: generating a phased migration plan. It specifies the steps (runs assessment, detects strategy, produces roadmap with quality gates), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'assess_legacy_codebase' or 'forge_migrate'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as whether 'assess_legacy_codebase' should be run first, or when to prefer 'forge_migrate' over this tool.

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