Preview migration SQL (structured)

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses key behavior: output is structured per changeset, a SQL-Server batch lint is included, and SQL bodies are omitted unless includeRaw or changesetId is set. It also clarifies the environment expectation that liquibase is on PATH and no wrapper is needed.

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 three tightly written sentences with the core behavior front-loaded. Every sentence contributes useful information: purpose, non-mutation guarantee, output omission rules, and environment note.

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 complex 11-parameter tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral context an agent needs. It covers purpose, safety, output shape, SQL omission rules, linting, and environment assumptions without duplicating schema documentation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important cross-parameter meaning by explaining that SQL bodies are omitted unless includeRaw or changesetId is set, which is not obvious from the individual schema fields alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: render the SQL Liquibase would run for pending changesets as structured per-changeset summaries. It also clearly distinguishes this preview operation from applying changes by stating 'Does NOT apply changes.'

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 establishes clear context for previewing pending migration SQL and explicitly notes that it does not apply changes. It does not name sibling alternatives such as liquibase_status or liquibase_validate, so the when-to-use guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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