Framework Migration Detector

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false; the description aligns by describing scanning/detection rather than mutation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it scans code, returns exact file locations, provides migration instructions, and currently supports only specified framework upgrade paths.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact paragraph on output details and a short list of examples. Every sentence contributes either capability, supported scope, or usage illustration; there is no filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the return value: 'Finds exact file locations... with migration instructions for each pattern.' It also discloses supported framework versions and provides example prompts, making the tool's behavior fully understandable for a read-only detector.

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?

Both parameters (project, directory) are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat their syntax or meaning. The examples reinforce that project is optional ('all projects') but add no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Detect framework migration needs by scanning code for deprecated patterns.' It lists supported migrations (Svelte 4→5, Next.js 13→14→15) and includes concrete usage examples, clearly distinguishing it from broader scanner tools like depsonar_scan or depsonar_deprecated.

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 examples ('Check if my projects need Svelte 5 migration', 'Migration scan for all projects') establish clear use cases for the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or how it compares to sibling tools such as depsonar_deprecated, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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