get_migration_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and idempotent=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the output shape (RETURNS: {rationale, diff, breaking_changes[], estimated_minutes}) and clarifies it produces a literal code diff, giving useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact: one sentence with clear STRUCTURE (purpose, USE WHEN, RETURNS). Every word adds value, and the format is easy to scan. No redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return format. It also covers usage context, prerequisite, and param spirit via examples. For a 3-parameter tool with strong annotations, this description is fully sufficient.

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 descriptions cover 67% of parameters (to_package and from_package are described). The description's examples (e.g., request→axios) illustrate the from/to relationship and ecosystem, but it does not add detailed parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It adds some value through concrete migration examples.

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 a specific deliverable: 'Prescriptive migration plan between DIFFERENT packages' with explicit output components (rationale, diff, breaking changes, effort). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_breaking_changes by offering a full migration plan rather than only breaking changes.

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 'USE WHEN' clause gives concrete scenarios (request→axios, moment→dayjs, flask→fastapi) and a prerequisite ('both endpoints known'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the use cases make the tool's niche clear.

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