explain_migration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool explains in plain English and does not execute migrations. However, it does not disclose what the explanation output looks like, whether there are side effects beyond reading, or whether any configuration is needed. Since annotations cover the main safety behaviors, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, the subject, the tone of the output, and the non-execution guarantee. This is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required), nested objects, an enum, and no output schema, the description is minimal but not enough. It fails to explain what 'paths' and 'options' mean, what frameworks are supported, or what the agent should expect in the response. The read-only annotations cover safety, but operational details are missing, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly on its first try.

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 description coverage is only 25%, with only 'repository' documented. The description adds no parameter information at all: it does not explain what 'paths' refers to (likely migration files or directories), what 'options' contains, or how 'framework' affects the explanation. With such low schema coverage and no compensation in the description, an agent would be guessing at parameter meaning.

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 ('Explain') with a clear resource ('migration operations') and adds a distinguishing qualifier ('without executing them'). It is not a tautology and differentiates well from siblings like generate_migration or list_migration_status. It could be slightly more specific about what counts as 'migration operations' (files? scripts?), but it is clear enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention siblings, conditions, or exclusions. The implied use case is 'when you want to understand a migration without running it,' but that is left entirely to inference, and no alternative tools are referenced.

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