read_migration

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Read-only', which is a valid safety hint, but fails to mention side effects (none expected), error handling (e.g., if migration not found), or output format. For a simple read tool, this is insufficient—the agent lacks information about what happens on failure or what exactly 'source' means (code content vs. file path?).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant words. Every word earns its place.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'source' means, how to differentiate from 'read_file' or 'read_model', or what the return value looks like. The agent lacks enough context to reliably select and invoke the tool among 23 siblings.

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% (the single parameter 'name' is fully described in the schema). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the burden.

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 'Return the source of a migration file. Read-only.' which uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('source of a migration file'), and the 'Read-only' qualifier adds clarity. The name 'read_migration' further distinguishes it from siblings like 'read_model' or 'read_file'. No tautology or vagueness.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as 'read_file', 'read_model', 'list_migrations', or 'migration_status'. The description does not address prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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