research_migration_scan

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the scan is 'offline' and 'bounded', and extracted artifacts remain 'PROPOSED'—clarifying that nothing is finalized or written. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent understand side effects.

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, no filler, and the most important qualifiers ('offline bounded', 'PROPOSED') are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only scan with idempotentHint and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral facts: offline, bounded, and non-final artifacts. However, it does not explain what the output looks like, how results are returned, or how path_prefix and max_files shape the scan. Given the tool's moderate complexity and zero schema description coverage, a bit more detail would be warranted.

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 carries the burden, but it only explains the source parameter implicitly ('default' vs bridge-owned data). It does not explain max_files or path_prefix semantics, though their names are fairly self-explanatory. The description adds some context for source but leaves the other two parameters to be inferred from names and schema constraints.

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 ('scan') and resource ('target repository' or 'bridge-owned data'), and adds the key qualifier 'offline bounded'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like repo_read and repo_search by emphasizing the scan is offline and bounded, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 context: it is a scan of the target repository or bridge-owned data, and the 'default' wording suggests the source parameter is optional. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over repo_read, repo_search, or repo_snapshot, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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