athena_schema_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds valuable behavioral traits: the plan is 'non-destructive' and the warning that 'a future/newer DB schema blocks silent downgrade' discloses a key constraint. This goes beyond the basic function description, though it could mention error behavior or return format.

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 tightly written sentences, each carrying meaningful content. The primary action is front-loaded, and the warning about downgrade adds crucial context without unnecessary words.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and an important safety caveat. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned migration plan, which would improve completeness given no output schema is present.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds context about the migration plan's purpose but does not need to describe parameter semantics since none exist.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Return'), a defined resource ('non-destructive migration plan'), and a clear scope ('from current schema-ledger version to this runtime target'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like athena_schema_migrate (execution) and athena_schema_status (status) by focusing on planning.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'non-destructive' hint implies it is for safe planning, but no direct comparison or exclusion (e.g., 'use this instead of athena_schema_migrate to preview changes') is provided.

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