audit_api_migration

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions auditing and suggesting conversion but does not specify whether the tool modifies files, produces a report, or has side effects. This lack of detail hinders the agent's ability to anticipate outcomes.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary, and no extraneous information is included.

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 that the tool has only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to explain what form the audit output takes (e.g., console output, suggestions in code) or how it integrates with the migration workflow, leaving some gaps for the agent.

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 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds 'Optional module path to audit,' mirroring the schema's description. No additional meaning is provided beyond what the schema already states, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 audits the API layer for RxJS Observables and suggests conversion to async/await. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling audit tools that focus on other aspects (e.g., audit_components, audit_deprecated_modules).

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_async_data or get_migration_summary. The description does not indicate prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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