inspect_schema_diff

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does imply the operation is a read-only comparison that reports breaking changes. However, it says nothing about the shape of the result, whether the change set is classified by severity, or any prerequisites, so it is only partially transparent.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the purpose and output are both delivered immediately. It is efficient, though arguably terse given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 two-string-parameter tool this covers the core action, but with no annotations and no output schema an agent still lacks any sense of what the diff returns and how it differs from the migration-safety sibling. Adequate but with clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description confirms the before/after ordering concept but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 pairs a specific verb (compare) with a specific resource (before/after SQL DDL schemas) and states the outcome (identify breaking changes). It is clear on its own, but it never acknowledges the adjacent siblings such as analyze_migration_safety or generate_dry_run_plan, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'to identify breaking changes' hints at intent but gives no condition that would route an agent here rather than to analyze_migration_safety.

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