vk_get_migratio_df7ac82f740d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the raw proxy nature, that no request body is usually required, that path/query parameters are top-level fields, and that aliases are accepted. It also mentions authentication requirements. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but for a simple GET endpoint, the details provided are valuable and non-redundant.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds useful information, though the boilerplate about parameter aliases could be considered somewhat extraneous for a zero-parameter endpoint. Overall, it is well-structured and not wasteful.

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 GET endpoint with no input parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It states the return value (the auth URL), the purpose of that URL, authentication requirements, and the REST endpoint. It could mention error scenarios or the exact format of the URL, but these are not critical for the caller to know how to invoke the tool.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds generic notes about parameter handling (top-level fields, aliases) but since no parameters exist, these notes are not specifically needed. However, the description does not need to explain parameters as there are none.

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's purpose: 'Get the auth url from Microsoft Todo.' It specifies the exact REST endpoint (GET /migration/microsoft-todo/auth) and distinguishes it from sibling migration tools by naming the specific integration (Microsoft Todo).

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 when to use the tool: when the user needs to retrieve the Microsoft Todo auth URL and obtain an auth code for migration. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the specificity to Microsoft Todo differentiates it from other sibling migration tools. It also notes authentication is required, which is a usage prerequisite.

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