check_v02_migration

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

The annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it is 'without creating proposals or writes', which reinforces the read-only nature but adds little beyond the annotations. The phrase 'safe staged' hints at the analysis nature but does not explain what the tool checks or returns. Given the strong annotations, the description provides only marginal additional behavioral context.

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 a single, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Analyze a local or remote bundle...') and immediately follows with the behavioral constraint ('without creating proposals or writes'). Every word contributes to the agent's understanding without 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?

For a read-only analysis tool with comprehensive annotations and fully described parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the tool's purpose, scope, and a critical constraint. One could argue it lacks details on what constitutes 'safe migration' or what the output looks like, but given the absence of an output schema and the tool's specific niche, the description provides enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The mention of 'staged' hints at workflow 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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by specifying that the bundle can be 'local or remote', which is not present in the schema's 'Bundle id to analyze'. This clarifies scope for the agent. For actorMappings and generatedPaths, the description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the bundle clarification justifies a slightly above-baseline score.

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 verb ('Analyze') and resource ('local or remote bundle') with a specific goal ('safe staged OKF v0.2 migration'). It also includes a strong differentiator ('without creating proposals or writes') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate_bundle or okf_list_proposals. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: when checking migration safety for a bundle. It also clarifies that it performs no writes or proposals, which is a key usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for inference. Still, the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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