get_migration_status

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

No annotations provided, and the description only says 'get status'. It does not disclose the response format, whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 clear sentence with no unnecessary words. While it could be expanded with more context, it achieves efficient communication without waste.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description fails to explain what the status response contains (e.g., fields, possible values). It also lacks context about the migration system (e.g., Supabase). This is incomplete for a tool with zero additional structured metadata.

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 coverage is 100% as the sole parameter 'version' has a description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get status of a specific migration', with a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'status of a specific migration'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_migrations (lists all) and rollback_migration (changes state).

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. The description does not mention when to check migration status, prerequisites, or contrast with siblings like list_migrations or get_deployment_status.

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