get_migration_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'detailed status' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., progress, errors, timestamps), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any authentication/rate limit requirements. For a status-checking tool, this leaves behavioral aspects unclear.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed status' entails, potential error conditions, or how this differs from other status tools, leaving gaps for proper tool invocation in a complex server environment.

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%, but there's only one parameter (migration_id). The description implies it's for a 'specific migration', aligning with the parameter, but doesn't add details like format, source, or validation rules. With minimal parameters, the baseline is appropriate but not enhanced.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed status of a specific migration', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_migrations' or 'get_workflow_status', which could provide similar migration-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_migrations' and 'get_workflow_status' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for ongoing migrations, completed ones, or specific migration types, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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