analyze_migration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool performs analysis and returns violations, risk level, and lock analysis, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, requires a database connection, or executes the SQL, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and mentions key return values. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and high-level outputs. It lacks detailed guidance on the structure of violations or risk level, but this is not critical for selection and invocation given the schema coverage.

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 (sql and pg_version) have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with 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 analyzes a PostgreSQL migration SQL for safety issues and specifies its outputs (violations, risk level, lock analysis). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like analyze_migration_dir, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a single migration SQL to analyze, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like check_before_apply or suggest_fix. No when-not or alternative mentions.

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