generate_v2_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does well by explaining that the tool analyzes the codebase, can write files (implied by dry_run description), defaults to not writing files, and returns a dictionary with specific keys (files, breaking_changes, warnings, manual_steps). It does not detail side effects like file overwriting or permissions, but for a code-generation tool this is solid transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a usage tip, and labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded. It is concise enough for a tool with three parameters and a non-trivial return value.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, main behavior, dry-run mode, and the full return structure. It could potentially mention prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., handling of non-v1 projects), but for the given complexity it is quite complete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, though the text already does.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains all three parameters: project_path is the v1 project directory, output_path is where v2 code should be generated, and dry_run controls whether files are written (defaulting to True). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema and fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate v2 code from a v1 project.' It further elaborates by saying it 'analyzes a v1 codebase and generates v2-compatible code.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_v1_project or map_v1_to_v2, which analyze or map rather than generate code.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when you have a v1 project and want v2 code) and includes a practical usage tip: 'Use dry_run=True to preview changes without writing files.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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