rails_lens_migration_context

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the specific data returned (schema, indexes, foreign keys, migration history) and that it provides warnings and templates, which goes beyond annotation hints.

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 sentence that concisely captures the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key outputs. Slightly more structure (e.g., listing items) could improve readability, but it is efficient.

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 description covers the main outputs but does not explain how the operation parameter influences the returned data. An output schema exists, so return values don't need elaboration, but the role of 'operation' in customization is missing.

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 already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (operation and table_name). The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what is in the schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns table schema, indexes, foreign keys, and migration history, with warnings and templates. It is specific about the resource (table) and the action (returning context). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rails_lens_get_schema or rails_lens_introspect_model, which may overlap somewhat.

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 versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when it should be avoided. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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