cyberchef_migration_preview

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns compatibility issues and can transform recipes, but it does not clarify whether 'transform' returns a converted recipe or persists changes, which is ambiguous given readOnlyHint=true. This is not a direct contradiction, but it misses an opportunity to remove confusion.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs both operational modes without wasted words.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient, but the absence of an output schema and the ambiguity around whether transformation modifies state leave an agent without a complete picture of the result or effect. More detail on the issue format or the read-only nature of the transform would be needed for a higher score.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the mode enum and the recipe parameter. The description adds no concrete parameter-format details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Analyze... for v2.0.0 compatibility'), identifies the resource ('recipes and configurations'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like cyberchef_deprecation_stats or cyberchef_recipe_validate by its migration focus. The optional transform behavior is also explicitly named.

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 clearly frames when to use this tool: when checking or migrating recipes/configurations to v2.0.0. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the top score, but the context is unambiguous.

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