map_v1_to_v2

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transformation action and the exact return dictionary (v2_code, breaking_changes, notes), but does not discuss failure modes, handling of unsupported v1 syntax, or any external side effects.

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 Description, Args, and Returns sections, and it is reasonably compact. The sentence 'Useful for understanding how specific v1 patterns translate to v2' is slightly redundant with the first sentence, but the overall layout is clear and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple (2 parameters, 1 required) and the description covers purpose, both parameters, and return values. An example or error-handling note would improve it, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, making the Args section essential. It defines v1_code_snippet as 'The v1 code to convert' and context as "Context hint ('model', 'handler', 'di', 'general')", adding enum-like value options not present in the JSON schema.

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 opening sentence 'Map a v1 code snippet to its v2 equivalent' clearly states a specific verb (map), resource (v1 code snippet), and result (v2 equivalent). The focus on 'code snippet' distinguishes it from project-level siblings like analyze_v1_project and generate_v2_migration.

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 offers a clear use case: 'Useful for understanding how specific v1 patterns translate to v2.' It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the 'when-not' aspect of a 5.

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