detect_migration_frameworks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that detection is based on repository evidence, implying static inspection, but it does not disclose limits such as which files are examined or whether the detection is definitive.

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 with no filler. Every word carries content: the verb, the specific frameworks, and the source of evidence are all 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool this is mostly sufficient, but since there is no output schema, the description does not state what the result looks like (e.g., a list of detected frameworks, booleans, or evidence paths). That return-format gap is the main omission.

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 already fully documents the single 'repository' parameter as a path, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond connecting the repository parameter to the notion of evidence, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with the imperative 'Detect' and names exactly five migration frameworks, making the operation and target unambiguous. The phrase 'from repository evidence' clarifies that it scans a repository, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_migration or explain_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 implies a repository-scanning use case but never states when to choose this over siblings such as detect_schema_drift, review_migrations, or list_migration_status. It offers no exclusion criteria or 'use instead when...' guidance, so an agent must infer applicability largely from the tool name and framework list.

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