get_rollback_guidance

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 a concrete behavioral promise—this tool never runs a rollback—which is consistent, but it does not disclose additional behavior such as response format or how inputs are processed.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and immediately add the critical safety caveat. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

With four parameters, nested options, low schema coverage, and no output schema, this description is too thin. An agent can safely infer that it returns guidance, but not what valid paths/options are or what the response will look like, which are material gaps for invoking it correctly.

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%, and only repository is described. The tool description does not clarify what paths should reference, how options are used, or how framework influences the guidance, leaving the agent to infer important 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 clearly states that the tool provides rollback guidance and caveats, and the explicit disclaimer 'never runs a rollback' distinguishes it from an execution tool. It could be more specific about the kind of guidance returned, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 disclaimer gives a useful negative usage signal: do not use this tool to actually perform a rollback. However, it does not state when to choose this over sibling tools such as explain_migration or review_migrations, or describe conditions that should trigger its use.

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