agno_migration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately states the tool fetches guides and FAQ, implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or free of side effects.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and usage. The Args list is clear but somewhat long; could be condensed without losing information.

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 description covers purpose, parameters, and usage guidance. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), explanation of return values is unnecessary. The tool is a simple documentation lookup, and the description adequately addresses its context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by listing concrete topic values ('v2-migration, workflows-migration, ...') and explaining the default behavior ('Leave empty to list all available topics'). This far exceeds the schema's minimal definition.

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 'Get migration guides and FAQ documentation.' It lists specific topics which distinguishes it from sibling documentation tools (agno_docs, agno_reference), but could be more explicit about how it differs from those.

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 states 'Use for upgrading Agno versions, installation issues, and common errors.' This gives clear context for when to invoke this tool, though it does not list alternatives or when not to use it.

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