migrationAnalyzer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states it parses and extracts, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention limitations (e.g., standard Laravel migration syntax only), output format, whether it scans the whole project, or any side effects. The info is too shallow for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that fully states the tool's purpose without filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 is simple (zero params, no nested schema), so the description is mostly adequate, but it lacks details about output structure. Without an output schema, the description should mention what format the extracted schema takes (e.g., array of table definitions, JSON), and any constraints on which migration files are analyzed. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as the description does not need to compensate for undocumented inputs.

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 ('Parse') and resource ('Laravel migration files'), and clearly states the extraction of database schema elements (columns, types, foreign keys). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like migrateStatus or schema by focusing on parsing migration files rather than running or reporting migrations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as schema, migrateStatus, and makeMigration could overlap, but the description does not mention any exclusions or alternative recommendations. The user must infer usage from the name and description.

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