list_migrations

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for transparency. It does not disclose what 'discovered migration files' means, whether it scans a specific directory, or if it has performance implications. The 'Read-only' declaration is helpful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise at only 8 words, clearly front-loaded with the purpose, and every word adds value. No wasted content.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose and read-only nature. However, for completeness, it could mention that this is a discovery/list operation versus showing migration status or content, especially given the large sibling set.

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 input schema defines no parameters and has 100% schema description coverage, so the description's job is low. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but none are needed since there are no parameters. The phrase 'with timestamps' adds slight value about the nature of the results.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discovered migration files with timestamps'), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_seeders' and 'list_models' by focusing on migrations, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'read_migration' or 'migration_status'.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'migration_status' or 'read_migration'. It lacks context for prerequisites, expected workflow position, or situations where this is preferred.

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