Migration preflight probe (read-only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds valuable behavioral context: comment/string-aware scanning, classification of blocks, mapping through layouts/partials/snippets, and the fact that it executes queries (which is a side-effect despite read-only intent). It also discloses that it returns a browser-probe checklist, which is beyond the schema. Minor deduction: it doesn't explicitly state that executing queries may have performance implications, but the read-only annotation covers the safety profile.

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 dense but front-loaded with the most important usage guidance ('run BEFORE writing any conversion pattern'). Every sentence adds substantive detail about scope, coverage, and behavior. It's long, but the complexity of the tool justifies it. Slight deduction for being a wall of text without paragraph breaks, which could be structured better.

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?

For a complex audit tool with 3 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it audits, how it classifies, what it flags, how it handles queries, and what it returns (including the browser-probe checklist). No output schema exists, so the description's mention of return contents is essential and sufficient. Nothing critical is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds context by explaining the trade-off between structural-only and full preflight (via execute_queries), and clarifies that limit caps per-block detail entries while full counts are always reported. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions, so a 4 is warranted.

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 states a specific verb ('run') and resource ('migration preflight probe'), and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it is an empirical audit that covers every block by function, not just scripted ones. It names the sibling repair_query_metadata as a fix for stale metadata, which helps differentiate.

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 says 'run BEFORE writing any conversion pattern', giving a clear temporal usage condition. It also implies when not to use it (when you need to fix stale metadata, use repair_query_metadata instead) and contrasts with structural-only passes via the execute_queries parameter. This is strong guidance.

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