get_migration_context

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only describes what the tool does, not side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files), error handling, or permissions needed. Mutation vs read-only status is 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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded with purpose. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could improve scannability without increasing word count significantly.

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?

Despite 3 parameters and no output schema, the description omits what the mapping output looks like, how to interpret results, and error scenarios. For a migration tool, output details are critical for agent decision-making.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema: it doesn't explain path formats, the optional section ID's significance, or how parameters interact.

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 builds a migration mapping between Design OS export and target project, listing specific aspects (colors, icons, CSS, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_target_project' which likely focus on analysis rather than mapping creation.

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 implies usage for migration planning but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not state when not to use or provide context about the migration workflow.

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