get_migration_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context (default project, that Batch guides exist only for 5.0/6.0, section keyword matching) and the schema notes raw wiki markdown, but nothing about rate limits, auth, or result format is disclosed.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource, with scope qualifiers kept short. It is efficient, though the three-project enumeration plus section filter makes it slightly packed.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description plus a fully documented schema cover the resolution logic (auto document selection per project) that an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing only explicit routing against sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters in detail (offset, project, section, version, document). The description adds only the default project and a section example, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (récupère) and resource (guide de migration / notes de version) scoped to three named projects for a target version, plus a section filter. It is clear about what it returns, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_release_notes, which plausibly overlaps.

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?

It conveys defaults ('Spring Boot (par défaut)') and the section-filter use case, so usage is implied. However it never says when to choose this over get_release_notes or get_all_spring_guides, nor any exclusions.

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