check_migration_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of safety disclosure. It clearly states "Never executes it," indicating the tool is non-destructive, and "Statically parses" further implies no mutation. However, it does not elaborate on what specific risky patterns are flagged or whether any external state is read beyond the file.

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 sentence with two clauses, front-loading the main verb and resource. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant information.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the core purpose, scope, and safety behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention what constitutes a risky pattern, which could be considered a minor completeness gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for sql_path, and the description does not explicitly define this parameter. However, the phrase "single migration .sql file" implicitly communicates that the path should point to such a file, providing some contextual compensation for the missing schema description.

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 "parses" and clearly identifies the resource (a single migration .sql file) and outcome (flags risky patterns). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_missing_indexes or generate_erd, which analyze the schema rather than migration files.

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 for checking a migration file before execution via "Never executes it" and "single migration .sql file," but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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