Config Security Check

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 never states whether this is read-only, whether it requires elevated permissions, what configuration surface is inspected (settings.php vs. config entities), or whether it can mutate anything. Only the nominal subject matter is disclosed.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 no parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain inputs or return values, and it correctly omits both. What remains missing is disambiguation from the crowded set of security siblings, which is the main thing an agent must resolve before calling it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and per the rubric this establishes a baseline of 4. The absence of parameters does mean no additional parameter context can be added.

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 gives a clear verb (Check) and resource (Drupal configuration) scoped to security issues, so the agent knows the general function. It does not, however, distinguish this from close siblings such as security_scan, security_audit, or csp_audit, leaving the boundary ambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many other security-oriented siblings (security_scan, security_audit, permission_audit, sql_injection_scan, xss_scan), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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