aism_migration_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the trailing 'Read-only' merely re-confirms them. The real added value is disclosing the scope of analysis the agent will receive — version comparison, dependency gaps, incompatible content types, prior-migration detection, and recommended steps — which tells the agent what a call actually yields. It stops short of covering cost, latency, or the fact that the target requires migration:write despite the read-only nature.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the action and scope come first, the enumerated checks follow, and the safety assertion closes it. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately compensates by listing the categories of findings the agent will get back, including recommended steps, so the agent knows what to expect. It does not describe the report's shape or how findings are ordered, which is a minor residual gap for a discovery/reporting tool.

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%, and the schema itself carries the important semantics: source vs target direction and the required scopes (migration:read for source, plus migration:write for target). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'two configured sites'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and object ('Compare two configured sites before migrating') and then enumerates exactly what dimensions are compared: versions, missing/outdated themes and plugins, unsupported post types and taxonomies, prior migration, and recommended steps. That is far more informative than a restated title. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like aism_migration_manifest or aism_migration_status, which is what keeps it from a 5.

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?

'before migrating' supplies a genuine timing cue that tells an agent when this tool belongs in a workflow. But no alternative tool is named and no exclusion is given — an agent still has to infer whether to call this versus aism_migration_manifest or aism_migration_status. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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