get_migration_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the guide's scope (renamed params, replaced methods, callbacks, promises, SVG, helpers) but omits return format, whether it is read-only, and how filtering affects output.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a compact parenthetical list of covered topics. Every element earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple documentation lookup with two optional, fully described parameters and no nested objects, the description is largely complete. It could still state the return format or how feature/category filtering behaves, but the core context is sufficient.

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 both the 'feature' and 'category' parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (consulta) and resource (guía oficial y tabla de equivalencias) for migrating Anime.js v3 to v4, and enumerates covered topics. It clearly distinguishes the tool's migration focus, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_anime_docs.

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 migrating Anime.js v3 code to v4, which is a clear context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or mention of alternative tools, leaving routing to inference.

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