pre_migration_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns a pass/fail report with blocking issues and warnings, and lists the checks performed. However, it does not disclose side effects (though likely none), permissions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, uses bullet points for clarity, and includes a clear usage directive. Every sentence adds value without verbosity.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. There is slight ambiguity about whether validation runs against the table itself or the sample records, but overall context is adequate.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool's description does not add significant new meaning beyond listing the checks, which relate to the parameters but do not detail syntax or usage. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool runs pre-migration validation checks against a target ServiceNow table, listing specific checks (picklist, reference integrity, required fields, business rules). It distinguishes from sibling migration tools by explicitly stating 'Always call this before run_migration.'

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 clear usage guidance with 'Always call this before run_migration,' indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when alternatives might be preferable, slightly limiting its completeness.

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