Migration Status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Summarize' implies a non-destructive read, but the description never confirms read-only behavior, permission requirements, cost, or whether progress reflects live counts versus a stored snapshot. The only added context is that the plan is 'persisted'.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. It is efficient but so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained and the single-parameter surface is small. Still, for a status/summary tool with zero annotation coverage, an agent gets no signal about prerequisites, freshness of the data, or what 'progress' encompasses.

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 schema only gives a type for migration_id with no meaning. The description only obliquely implies migration_id identifies a persisted plan; it adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance, leaving the sole required parameter effectively undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Summarize migration progress'), which an agent can distinguish from mutation siblings like run_migration or record_migration_result. However, it never contrasts itself with the closest read siblings such as get_migration_plan, reconcile_migration_counts, or list_migration_plans, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., the plan must already be persisted and a migration executed), and no mention of alternatives. The phrase 'for a persisted plan' hints at a precondition but does not state it as a usage rule.

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