aism_migration_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so 'Read-only' merely echoes structured data. The description does add genuine value by stating what the tool compares and that it surfaces finalize state, but says nothing about auth requirements for the two sites beyond what the schema states.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the operation is stated first and the read-only safety note follows. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only comparison tool, the description plus the 100%-documented schema and annotations give the agent enough to call it correctly. Without an output schema, more detail on the shape of the comparison report would have helped, but the essential behavior is covered.

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 100%: both source and target are fully documented including naming pattern and required permissions. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific operation: comparing source content counts against migrated content in the target and reporting finalize state. The verb+resource are clear enough to distinguish it from migration_run or migration_copy, though it does not explicitly position itself among the many migration siblings.

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 name and the 'report finalize state' phrasing – an agent can infer this is a verification check to run around migration, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it versus aism_migration_manifest or aism_migration_plan, and no exclusions.

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