springboot_check_migrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: it does not execute SQL or migrations, and unreported pending states require a trusted expectation to be interpreted. It still says nothing about result ordering, pagination behavior, or how UNKNOWN/OUT_OF_ORDER are derived.

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 dense sentence with the resource description front-loaded and the usage trigger second. Efficient, though the semicolon-joined clauses on unreported pending states are compressed enough to need re-reading.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, a 10-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions needs the prose to explain filtering, pagination and engine selection, and the description covers only a fraction of that surface.

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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at migrationBean, the expected-set inputs, and the status fields; state, cursor, maxResults, engine, targetId, contextId and version are entirely undocumented in both places, leaving the agent to infer pagination and scoping semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns reported migrations, checksums, ordering and exception state across all containers and migration beans. That is clearly a migration-audit operation, distinct in domain from the health/startup/drift/config siblings, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger: call it when troubleshooting migration failures or version discrepancies. It also hints at the expected-set workflow for unreported pending states, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to an alternative tool such as drift detection.

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