delimit_sensor_github_migrations

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It explains what patterns are detected but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, authorization needs, or output schema structure. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 concise (three sentences plus a list of examples), front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 simple input schema (2 params) and presence of an output schema (though not described), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, detection patterns, and business use. It would benefit from mentioning output shape, but overall it is 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds context about usage but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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, specifies the language it detects, and lists output elements (source/target tools, sentiment, strength). This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like delimit_github_scan or 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 a clear use case ('useful for competitive intelligence') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternative tools for other scenarios. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced for differentiation.

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