get_migration_jobs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is clearly safe to call. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: progressMessage semantics, skipGuard meaning, and the warning to read skipGuard before offering a skip to avoid a 400 error. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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 long but dense and front-loaded with the primary action and definition. Every sentence contributes: usage purposes, progress reporting behavior, skipGuard semantics, and a caution about triggering a 400. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns conceptually, how to interpret progress fields, and how to avoid a common error when using the results with sibling skip tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema fully documents the single parameter `id` as a UUID 'Migration ID' (100% schema description coverage). The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the burden, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all jobs for a migration.' It then defines what a job is within the migration context and distinguishes this tool from higher-level migration and deployment tools by emphasizing the granular view and jobId retrieval for retry/skip.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: to understand granular activity, diagnose failures, or find a jobId for retry/skip. It also gives concrete guidance on reporting progress and reading skipGuard. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_migration_deployments, so it lacks a true 'when-not-to-use' clause.

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