Migration status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the three status classifications it returns, including detection of migrations edited after application, which is behavior not visible in the annotations or schema. It says nothing about ordering, volume, or scope (which database/repo), so the addition is moderate rather than rich.

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 sentence with the action and the returned state set front-loaded, and no filler or repetition of the title. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 parameterless, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what states it reports. Minor gaps remain around scope (which project or database is inspected) and whether the result is per-migration detail or a summary, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. The description does not need to explain arguments and correctly spends none of its text on them.

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 names a specific verb ("Lists") and resource ("migrations drizzle-kit generated") and enumerates the states reported, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'drift', which plausibly overlaps in reporting schema-vs-database mismatches, leaving an agent to guess which one to reach for.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of applied/pending/edited states suggests a status-check before or after running migrations, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no named alternative such as 'drift' or 'schema'. An agent can infer the use case but gets no routing guidance.

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