Analyze D7 Site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the analysis is read-only, whether it requires the 'auth' credentials to reach a live site, whether it mutates anything, or how long/heavy the scan is. For an analysis tool hitting a remote site, that is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, one sentence is undersized for a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, so terseness here reads as under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits authentication requirements, the meaning of the include_* toggles, and any differentiation from analyze_d9_site. An agent cannot invoke this correctly on scope alone.

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 0% across 4 parameters, and the description compensates for none of them. It never mentions 'auth' (an opaque anyOf object), 'site_url', or the 'include_content'/'include_modules' toggles that materially change the scan scope.

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?

States a specific verb ('Analyze'), a specific resource ('Drupal 7 site'), and the goal ('D10 upgrade readiness'). The 'D7' qualifier does implicitly distinguish it from sibling analyze_d9_site, but the description never names that sibling or otherwise routes between them.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings such as analyze_d9_site, map_modules_d7_to_d10, or find_deprecated_code that an agent would need to choose between. The agent must infer the workflow position entirely.

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