get_migration_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (dictionary with migration progress and field breakdown) but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any prerequisites. The behavior is mostly evident from the name, but the description adds only output details, not deeper behavioral context.

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 three short sentences, each contributing meaningful information: purpose, specific details, and return value. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids redundancy or fluff.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description fully covers the necessary context. It explains what the tool does, what it reports, and what it returns, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the rubric, a description for a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and no additional parameter explanation is needed. The description accurately reflects that no arguments are required.

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: 'Get overall migration progress statistics for the 810 contests.' It specifies exactly what it reports (migrated/pending/missing fields), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contests_for_migration or apply_migration_patch.

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?

Usage context is implied ('overall migration progress statistics' suggests use for high-level status), but the description does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of related siblings like get_contests_for_migration or database_status. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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