check_v02_migration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal new behavioral detail beyond the read-only intent ('Analyze... without creating proposals or writes'), but it does not disclose other behaviors like required permissions, rate limits, or result format. Since annotations cover the core safety traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every clause earns its place: 'local or remote,' 'safe staged OKF v0.2 migration,' and 'without creating proposals or writes' all add distinct value. No filler or 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?

The tool has only three optional parameters, full schema documentation, and comprehensive annotations. The description covers the tool's core purpose and its key non-destructive constraint. Since there is no output schema, it could have explained return format, but for a read-only analysis tool, the description is sufficiently complete given the other structured metadata.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific information (e.g., how bundle, actorMappings, and generatedPaths interact with the migration analysis). This is a baseline 3 because the schema carries the meaning.

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 opens with 'Analyze a local or remote bundle' – a specific verb and resource – and clearly states the goal of 'safe staged OKF v0.2 migration.' It explicitly mentions 'without creating proposals or writes,' which differentiates it from tools that do create proposals, such as okf_get_proposal or okf_list_proposals.

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 states when to use this tool: when analyzing a bundle for migration safety. It also provides a key exclusion ('without creating proposals or writes'), implying alternatives that do create writes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like validate_bundle or okf_validate_concept, so the guidance is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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