plan_migration

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 states 'Reads the filesystem', which suggests a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness. The mention of being gated like scan_path adds some behavioral context.

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 sentence of moderate length that is clear and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses few words but covers essential details without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return format (grouped, ordered, with PQC target and impact) and references scan_path for gating, which is sufficient for an AI agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'path', so the schema already documents its meaning. The description does not add new information about the parameter beyond referencing it.

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 it scans a path and returns a deterministic, prioritized post-quantum migration plan. It specifies the output format: findings grouped by algorithm, ordered harvest-now-decrypt-later first, with PQC target and readiness-score impact. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_path.

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 mentions the tool reads the filesystem and is gated like scan_path over HTTP, implying usage context (e.g. authentication, rate limits). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like remediate_findings or triage_findings.

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