get_branch_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes a 'get' operation, which implicitly suggests a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not explicitly state read-only status, potential side effects, permissions, or error behavior, relying on the verb 'get' to imply safety.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean list of parameters. Every element earns its place, with no redundant text or filler.

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?

The tool has a modest parameter set (3), an output schema, and no annotations. The description clearly articulates the tool's purpose and parameters, and the output schema covers return values. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance, but overall it provides sufficient context for a simple getter.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for all three parameters (project_uuid, schema_uuid, branch_name), but most are mere restatements of the parameter names (e.g., 'UUID проекта' for project_uuid). The only additional semantic value is the explicit default for branch_name ('main').

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 tool's function: 'Get SQL migration between base and current commit of the branch.' It uses a specific verb ('get') and a distinct resource ('SQL migration') with a defined scope. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on other branch operations like checkout, merge, or commit.

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 implies usage when a SQL migration diff is needed between a branch's base and current commit, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No alternative tools are referenced.

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