analyze_migration

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

Without annotations, description provides a detailed list of detection patterns (e.g., ACCESS EXCLUSIVE locks, data loss operations, cascade risks) but omits behavioral traits like processing limits, side effects (assumed read-only), or performance implications. Sufficient for basic understanding but could be more thorough.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists specific patterns in bullet-like format. Each sentence adds value; no fluff. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., spacing) but largely efficient.

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?

As a static analysis tool without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of risks, severity scores). It currently lists what it detects but not the response format, leaving agents unsure of how to interpret output.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (filename, sql). Description adds context about filename patterns (V__*.sql, R__*.sql) beyond schema, but this is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it analyzes SQL migration files for lock risks, data loss, and unsafe patterns. Lists specific detectable operations (e.g., ACCESS EXCLUSIVE locks, data loss operations) and distinguishes from sibling tools (analyze_liquibase, analyze_liquibase_yaml) by specifying Flyway support.

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?

Explicitly states support for Flyway versioned and repeatable migrations, and plain SQL files, which guides when to use this tool. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or direct comparison to siblings, though naming and context provide implicit differentiation.

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