project_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('return') but does not mention any permissions, potential errors, or whether it provides a static guide or dynamic lookup. The transparency is minimal.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with no parameters, though it could benefit from additional context. The brevity is effective but not exemplary enough for a 5.

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?

Despite the low complexity (0 params) and the presence of an output schema (which obviates the need to describe return values), the description fails to provide context about what 'project migration' means, when to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools. This is a significant completeness gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, this dimension earns a 4; the description correctly says nothing about parameters and is not misleading.

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 'Return project migration instructions' essentially restates the tool name with a generic verb and resource. It does not specify what 'project migration' means or how it differs from siblings like notebook_to_kedro, making it a tautology rather than a clear, distinguishing purpose.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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