Find Deprecated Code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the scan is read-only/non-mutating, whether it writes a report, how long it takes, or what scope it covers beyond 'custom modules'; 'scan' weakly implies a safe read but nothing is explicit.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 explained, but for a tool with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits the safety profile, parameter meaning, and any routing to the many competing scan/audit siblings.

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 neither site_path (required) nor scan_custom_modules is documented anywhere. The description's phrase 'custom modules' hints at scan_custom_modules but does not clarify what true/false changes or what site_path should point to, leaving both parameters opaque.

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 pairs a clear verb ('Scan') with a specific resource ('custom modules') and target ('deprecated Drupal APIs'), so the agent knows the operation. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as deprecation_scan or code_audit_phpstan, which likely overlap.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite several near-twin siblings (deprecation_scan, code_sniffer, code_audit_phpstan). The agent must guess which scan tool applies to a given deprecation-checking task.

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