Analyze D9 Site

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, and it delivers almost none: nothing about whether the analysis is read-only, what credentials 'auth' requires, how deep or slow the scan is, or whether it contacts the live site. Only the output topic (deprecated code and APIs) is stated.

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 appropriately sized for a short description. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity contributes to the missing guidance elsewhere.

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 three parameters, a required site URL, and no annotations, the description omits authentication requirements, the meaning of check_deprecated, and any scan scope or safety context. The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values, but the invocation-side gaps remain substantial.

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% for all three parameters. The description implies site_url and loosely gestures at deprecated-code checking, but leaves 'auth' and 'check_deprecated' (and the fact that deprecation checking is toggleable and on by default) entirely undocumented, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) plus resource (Drupal 9+ site) and names the target of analysis (deprecated code and APIs). The '9+' version scope implicitly separates it from analyze_d7_site, but it does not distinguish itself from closer siblings like find_deprecated_code or deprecation_scan.

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 alternatives such as find_deprecated_code, deprecation_scan, or analyze_d7_site. The only usable signal is the implied 'Drupal 9+' version filter, which is thin for routing among many overlapping analysis tools.

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