check_migration_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return as a gap analysis of what exists, missing, and needs adding. It does not explicitly state the tool is read-only or discuss permissions/rate limits, but the inspection nature is implied.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph of 4 sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage advice, return summary, and scope. Every sentence is necessary and efficient.

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 the tool's role in migration workflow and the number of sibling tools, the description sufficiently orients the agent. It explains the return (gap analysis) and scope (any platform/table). Minor gap: no mention of error handling or empty results, but adequate for a pre-build check 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by mentioning 'source→target combination' and emphasizing flexibility ('Works for ANY source platform and ANY ServiceNow target table'), but does not elaborate on individual parameter formats or the optional staging_table.

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 clearly states the action ('Inspect ServiceNow to see migration artifacts') and the specific source→target combination. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly advising to call before build_artifacts and by noting it works for any platform and target table.

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 description provides explicit when-to-use: 'Call this at the very start of any migration session (before build_artifacts) to avoid re-creating things.' It does not list when not to use or provide direct alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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