Migrate Aura Component to LWC

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'does not modify the org'. It also describes the output components (concept mappings, key differences, optional scaffold), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, prerequisites, or rate limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some but not rich context.

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 compact, with two sentences covering purpose and safety, followed by inline parameter definitions. It is well-structured and front-loaded, but the parameter definitions duplicate the schema descriptions, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it earns its place without excessive verbosity.

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 read-only analysis tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns (guide with mappings, differences, scaffold), and its non-destructive nature. It does not mention prerequisites such as the component existing, but the annotations and schema fill most gaps, making it sufficiently complete for an AI agent.

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 schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), and the description repeats them almost verbatim (e.g., 'includeScaffold: whether to generate equivalent LWC template, JS, CSS, and meta files'). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already documents, 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 clearly states the tool 'Analyzes an Aura component and returns a comprehensive migration guide', specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_create_lwc or sf_guide_lwc_accessibility by focusing specifically on Aura-to-LWC 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 explicitly notes 'A read-only advisory tool — does not modify the org', providing clear context that this is for analysis/migration guidance rather than direct modifications. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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