delimit_sensor_github_migrations

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses read-only side effects, allowlist enforcement (LED-881 guard), and the underlying function call. Missing details like rate limits or error handling, but covers key behavioral traits well.

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 structured with clear sections (purpose, when to use/not use, sibling contrast, side effects). It is informative without being verbose. Could be slightly more streamlined, but effective.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals say true), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage guidance, sibling differentiation, side effects, and internal calls—complete for a 2-param tool with good sibling context.

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 3 applies. The description does not add significant semantics beyond the schema's descriptions of 'repos' and 'limit'. It mentions 'per repo' in limit context but no extra detail.

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. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that it detects migration-pattern language, while delimit_sensor_github_issue tracks a specific issue's state and delimit_github_scan does broad public-repo polling.

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?

Explicitly provides 'When to use' (competitive intelligence) and 'When NOT to use' (general sensing, single-issue intel, broad polling), naming alternative tools like delimit_sense, delimit_sensor_github_issue, and delimit_github_scan.

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