Get Migration Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by listing the types of files targeted (MIGRATION.md, UPGRADING.md, CHANGELOG, etc.), which helps the agent understand the tool's scope without contradicting 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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, listing target files, and providing usage guidance with alternatives. It is concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's scope, prerequisites, and when to use alternatives. It could mention the output format, but the lack is acceptable with annotations present.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not add further meaning. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents each parameter's purpose.

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 purpose: 'Fetch migration guides, breaking changes, and upgrade instructions for a library.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('migration guides'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'gt_changelog' by indicating when to use each.

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 guidance: 'Use this when the user asks HOW to upgrade...' and 'For what changed... use gt_changelog instead.' It also instructs to call 'gt_resolve_library' first, setting clear prerequisites.

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