migrate

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is read-only and it returns a JSON report describing what maps cleanly versus what needs manual work. It omits execution details such as expected runtime, required tooling/environment, or whether any artifacts are written to disk.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The read-only qualifier and the return-value summary are front-loaded where an agent will see them, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it is safe (read-only), and what comes back. Missing only operational context (requirements, scale of a typical run) that would help set expectations.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage ("Path to the Selenium project to analyze"). The description adds only mild context by implying the directory must contain an existing Selenium Java project; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the documentation work.

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 gives a specific verb and object ("Analyze an existing Selenium Java project") and names the target technology and mechanism ("migration to Selenium Boot ... via selenium-boot-migrator"). It also corrects the misleading name 'migrate' by clarifying this is analysis, not mutation. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like detect_selenium_boot or generate.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer you call this on an existing Selenium Java project before migrating. There is no statement of prerequisites (does the migrator need to be installed?), no when-not condition, and no pointer to the alternative tool (e.g. generate) for new projects.

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