estimate_migration_effort

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool estimates effort, but does not disclose the model, assumptions, accuracy, or nature of the output. There is no mention of whether the estimate is deterministic, what formula is used, or what the result contains. This is a significant gap for a tool that produces a derived value.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It perfectly balances brevity with conveying the core purpose and input characteristics.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with five optional numeric parameters and an output schema present. The description conveys the main purpose, but lacks context about the output format, assumptions, or how to interpret the result. Since no annotations exist, the description alone is slightly too minimal for full completeness, but the output schema mitigates some gaps.

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 compensate. It adds the collective meaning 'coarse inventory counts' to the numeric parameters, indicating they are approximate inputs rather than precise figures. This adds some value beyond the raw schema, but it does not explain individual parameters or their units in detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and a clear resource ('migration effort') with a unit ('person-days'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_api_contract and sql_to_flyway, which are about code transformation and contract extraction, not effort estimation.

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 phrase 'from coarse inventory counts' implies when to use: when you have approximate counts of code, pages, etc., and need an effort estimate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides an implied usage context but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative guidance.

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