Laravel Migrations Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it lists migration status, but does not elaborate on what happens if no migrations are found or how the status is presented (e.g., pending vs run).

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 in Turkish, front-loaded with the action and resource. No wasted words; every part contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the tool is simple, has one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could hint at the return format (list of migrations with status), but the name and context suffice for an agent.

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% with a single optional parameter 'projectPath' described. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 purpose: listing whether Laravel migrations have been executed. The verb 'list' and resource 'migration status' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like 'laravel_artisan' or 'laravel_routes'.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling tools implies it is for checking migration status rather than running migrations, but the description lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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