Analyze Source Site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors: authentication is required to avoid under-reporting hidden JSON:API fields, and counts may optionally be persisted to a plan (i.e., it can mutate state). It says nothing about rate limits, permissions, or TLS handling despite a verify_tls parameter.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by a focused authentication caveat; only two sentences and no filler. The backtick-heavy formatting is slightly awkward but does not impede reading.

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?

The output schema covers return values, but a 7-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations needs more explanatory coverage than this. Key inputs (token vs username/password relationship, source_url, verify_tls, migration_id, resource_type) are left entirely to inference.

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%, so all 7 parameters are undocumented in structured form. The description only clarifies the semantics of username/password; token, source_url, verify_tls, migration_id, and resource_type remain unexplained, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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') and resource ('source Drupal JSON:API resource type'), plus the secondary effect of storing counts in a plan. It is distinguishable from D7/D9 site analyzers by naming JSON:API resource types, but does not explicitly contrast with the many other inventory/analysis siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing among siblings like analyze_d7_site, analyze_d9_site, or jsonapi_resource_types. The authentication note hints at a scenario (unauthenticated analysis under-reports) but never frames it as a usage condition.

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