migration_generatePlan

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden. It successfully discloses return value structure (auto-mapped instructions and unmapped activities list) compensating for missing output schema. However, it fails to clarify if this creates a persistent plan object (with side effects) or performs a transient calculation, omitting persistence and idempotency traits.

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 efficient sentences: first establishes action and scope, second details return value. No redundancy or filler content.

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?

Given empty input schema and no annotations, the description partially compensates by detailing the output structure. However, it lacks critical workflow context (relationship to validation/execution steps) and leaves ambiguity about whether the generated plan is persisted or transient.

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?

While 0 parameters typically warrants a baseline 4, the description creates confusion by referencing 'source' and 'target' process definitions as if they are inputs, yet the schema defines zero properties. This mismatch implies parameters exist where they do not, misleading an agent attempting to populate arguments.

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?

Clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('migration plan'). Specifies it involves 'source to target process definition' and distinguishes output components (auto-mapped vs unmapped activities), giving specific scope. Does not explicitly differentiate from sibling migration_validatePlan or migration_executeBatch.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when to call validatePlan afterward), no prerequisites mentioned, and no indication that this is typically the first step in a multi-step migration workflow.

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