aism_migration_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that data is 'raw' (unprocessed export shape) and paginated ('one page'), but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or what a page contains. Adds some value beyond annotations, but not rich 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the parenthetical list earns its space by clarifying scope of the `posts` kind. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the shape of a 'raw export page' or how pagination termination works, which are the main things an agent needs for a raw-paging inspection tool. Acceptable for routing, thin for correct invocation.

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 only 43%, and the schema itself documents only ids, site and modified_after. The description contributes real meaning for the `kind` enum (posts include attachments/menus/templates), but leaves page, per_page and post_type entirely unexplained, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read one raw export page from a site') and enumerates exactly what the four kinds cover, including that 'posts' spans attachments/menus/templates. It also names the siblings that do this automatically, so an agent can separate it from aism_migration_run/copy without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'for inspection' plus the note that aism_migration_run and aism_migration_copy do this automatically makes the intended context clear: manual raw-data inspection, not bulk migration. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this to migrate' exclusion, but the routing signal is strong.

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