Get Migration Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds behavioral context by specifying the types of documents it targets (MIGRATION.md, CHANGELOG, etc.), which is useful beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, prerequisite, and when to use vs alternative. No redundancy, perfectly front-loaded.

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 4-parameter input schema with 100% coverage and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary context: what it retrieves, prerequisite, and differentiation from sibling. No output schema needed as the description clarifies the return type.

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 description coverage is 100%, so schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining that libraryId comes from gt_resolve_library and reinforces the version parameters. This provides contextual meaning beyond the schema.

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 fetches migration guides, breaking changes, and upgrade instructions for a library, specifying target files like MIGRATION.md. It distinguishes from sibling tool gt_changelog, which is for release notes without upgrade instructions.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when user asks HOW to upgrade step-by-step. Also provides a clear exclusion: for release notes without upgrade instructions, use gt_changelog instead. Includes prerequisite to call gt_resolve_library first.

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