slua_migration_guidance

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful trait beyond the annotations: this tool will not rewrite source code, which prevents a false expectation of transformation. It says nothing about result shape, scope limits, or how "exact" the counterparts are (version coverage), so it is only a partial gain.

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?

Two compact sentences with the capability up front and the key caveat last; no filler. It is arguably too compressed given the schema gaps, but nothing is redundant.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. The remaining gaps are unenumerated topic values, the unspecified default of "all," the undocumented symbol format, and the missing direction/versions of the migration mapping.

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 carry the load, and it does partially: the listed areas (event, timer, table, numeric, conversion) plausibly name accepted topic values, and "per-API counterparts" hints that symbol selects an API to diff. However, it never states the default "all" behavior, the relationship between topic and symbol, or the string format expected for symbol.

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?

"Review exact per-API counterparts and event, timer, table, numeric and conversion differences" conveys that this is a cross-language mapping/differences reference, but the source and target languages are never named and the tool name is the only cue (slua_ vs the lsl_ siblings). The verb "Review" is also loose for a lookup-style tool, so the purpose is inferable rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use statement and no alternative named. The only routing hint is the negative "No automatic source rewriting," which weakly implies the check/compile siblings handle rewriting, but the agent must infer that.

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