find_schema_churn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool reads Git history and computes churn frequency and recency, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like beyond the schema, or how the optional since_days parameter affects behavior.

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, tightly packed sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key concept ('Git-history churn per table') and immediately expands on what that means.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter and an output schema, but the description fails to explain the parameter's meaning or provide any usage context. Since the schema coverage is 0% and there are no annotations, the description is the only source of semantic context, and it is incomplete for a tool with even a single parameter.

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 sole parameter, since_days, is completely unexplained. The schema provides no description (coverage 0%), and the tool description does not mention it. The description's reference to 'how recently' hints at a time window, but does not clarify that since_days controls it. This is a significant gap.

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: it computes Git-history churn per table, measuring how often and how recently migrations changed. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on indexes, foreign keys, complexity, ERD generation, migration risk, and overviews.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. While the purpose implies use for schema evolution analysis, explicit usage guidance is absent.

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