suggest-migration-path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool produces (step-by-step guidance, breaking changes, deprecated APIs, code examples, effort) and that it combines 'curated migration guides with documentation search' – giving insight into internal mechanism. Does not mention side effects or limitations, but as a read-only suggestion tool, transparency is strong.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key deliverables. No fluff, every word contributes value. The second sentence succinctly explains the hybrid source approach.

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?

Tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, but the description provides a solid overview of purpose and outputs. The schema fills in parameter details. It lacks explicit notes on return structure or edge cases, but for this complexity level, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to infer usage.

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% for all 6 parameters, so the schema already defines each parameter. The tool description adds context (e.g., 'code examples' and 'estimated effort') but does not explain parameter-specific behavior like the meaning of 'format' or 'fromVersion: auto'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Provides step-by-step migration guidance for upgrading between library versions'. It enumerates specific content (breaking changes, deprecated APIs, code examples, estimated effort) and distinguishes from siblings like compare-api-versions by focusing on migration guidance rather than comparison. The verb 'suggest-migration-path' aligns with the description.

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 implies usage for migration scenarios ('upgrading between library versions'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare-api-versions or get-library-docs. No exclusions or alternative references provided. The context from sibling names suggests differentiation is possible but not stated.

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