migration_risks

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come with 'source evidence', which is genuinely useful context about the response, but says nothing about pagination behavior or how risks are ranked.

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?

A single dense sentence with the risk categories front-loaded after the verb; nothing is redundant. It is compact to the point of omitting needed detail, but the brevity itself is well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations explaining results, the description should say what 'source evidence' looks like (file/line references?) and how the path argument is interpreted. Neither is present, leaving the agent under-informed for a three-parameter invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry all meaning for the three parameters and it carries none: 'path' (the only required argument) is never explained as a source root vs. a Form module, and limit/offset are only discoverable from the schema defaults. This is a significant gap for an otherwise scoped analysis tool.

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?

States a specific verb (find) and a concrete resource (Forms migration risks across navigation, session, integration, dynamic-SQL and transaction categories), with the notable output promise of 'source evidence'. The risk taxonomy makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like analyze_form or plan_apex, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this versus analyze_form or plan_apex, no prerequisite (e.g. must the codebase be indexed first), and no exclusion criteria. An agent can only infer usage from the migration-testing framing of the sentence.

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