Run Migration Test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it. 'Test' hints at a non-destructive dry run, but it never states whether data is written, whether it affects the target site, or what the test is against.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness, keeping it just shy of a 5.

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 described, but for a test/execution tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description omits critical context: scope of the test, side effects, and how `migration_id` identifies the target.

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 nothing documents either parameter. The description's 'limited records' loosely gestures at the `limit` parameter (default 10) but explains nothing about its meaning or range, and `migration_id` goes entirely unexplained.

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 (Test) and resource (migration), plus the narrowing qualifier 'with limited records'. It is understandable, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like validate_migration, so it falls short of a 5.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as validate_migration or a full migration run. The phrase 'with limited records' implies a partial/smoke test but leaves the agent to infer when that is appropriate.

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