list_migrations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it 'Lists applied database migrations,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, output format (e.g., list of migration IDs/timestamps), or pagination. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 action ('Lists applied database migrations') and adds specific detail ('recorded in supabase_migrations.schema_migrations table'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output, or usage. For a tool that likely returns structured migration data, this leaves the agent guessing about results and applicability.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial here). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. No extra value is required beyond stating the purpose.

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 clearly states the verb ('Lists') and resource ('applied database migrations'), specifying the exact table ('supabase_migrations.schema_migrations'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tables' or 'list_extensions' by focusing on migrations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from hypothetical similar tools (e.g., 'list_pending_migrations'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after applying migrations), exclusions (e.g., not for pending migrations), or related tools like 'apply_migration'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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