Migration status

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

Description simply says 'show' implying read-only, but no explicit confirmation of non-destructive behavior. With no annotations provided, the description should clarify if it's safe, any side effects, or authorization needs, but it does not.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not specify the structure or format of the migration status output, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (none undefined). Per guidelines, 0 parameters earn a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 what the tool does: 'Show migration status.' It also provides the underlying CLI commands, making the purpose specific and distinct from sibling tools like db_schema or deps_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many status-related tools (e.g., deps_status, pinker_status), but the description offers no differentiation or when-not-to-use advice.

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