Get migration plan and behavior changes

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the guide bundles global migration requirements with rollout/rollback guidance, and componentId filtering narrows behavior changes without dropping the global requirements — a non-obvious filtering trait.

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?

Two tight sentences with the payload scope front-loaded and the parameter nuance second. It is dense but every clause maps to real content or behavior; no filler or restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description completes the remaining gaps — payload composition and the componentId filtering side-effect — leaving only minor omissions such as prerequisites for v3 migration.

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 0% and the schema only gives componentId as a minLength-1 string, so the description must carry the semantics. It does: componentId 'filters behavior changes while preserving global migration requirements,' which tells the agent both the effect and the important side-effect that global content is retained. It stops short of format examples.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get_migration_guide' → 'Full canonical v2-to-v3 migration plan') and enumerates the payload contents (rollout/rollback guidance, behavior changes, compatibility baseline, legacy geometry CSS), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like get_behavior or get_overview.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content listing — an agent infers this is for v2→v3 migration work — but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no named alternative for narrower questions (e.g., get_behavior). The one guidance-adjacent sentence describes parameter behavior rather than when to select this tool.

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