delimit_sensor_github_migrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes detection patterns and output structure but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only status, rate limits, or authentication needs. The tool is likely non-destructive, but not stated.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the tool's function, detection patterns, and output.

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?

Given the output schema and high schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, detection patterns, and output structure. It could mention rate limits or pagination, but these are not critical for a sensor tool with output schema.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool scans GitHub issues/PRs for migration patterns across target repos, specifying the resource (issues/PRs), action (scan), and scope (repos). It also details the patterns detected and the output (structured signals), which distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_sensor_github_issue.

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 usage ('Useful for competitive intelligence') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The sibling list includes similar scanning tools, but no exclusions are given.

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