review_migrations

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 valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states the tool does NOT execute migrations, and it enumerates the risk categories it checks (destructive, availability, data, rollback). This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the non-execution behavior and the scope of analysis.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Statically review migration files') and then lists the specific risk categories. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it analyzes, what risks it checks, and that it doesn't execute. It doesn't describe the output format or how results are returned, but since there's no output schema, a brief note on return format would help. The framework enum and paths parameter are left to inference, but the overall picture is clear enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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' having a description. The tool description does not explain the meaning of 'paths', 'options', or 'framework'. However, the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory: 'paths' likely refers to migration file paths, 'framework' selects the migration framework, and 'options' is a generic options bag. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so it doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage, but the names carry reasonable 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 the tool's purpose: statically review migration files for destructive, availability, data, and rollback risks without executing them. It uses a specific verb ('review'), names the resource ('migration files'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_migration and explain_migration by emphasizing static analysis and risk categories.

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 when to use this tool: when you need to assess migration risks without executing them. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the static-analysis framing and risk categories provide clear context. Sibling names like generate_migration and explain_migration suggest alternatives, but the description doesn't explicitly route between them.

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