Health Check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that probes are read-only, enumerates the four probe targets, notes which modules are required vs recommended, and states each failure includes a concrete fix. It stops short of describing output format or probe ordering/timeouts, but the output schema exists and covers returns.

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 with purpose, then probes, then module assumptions, then the 'run first' trigger. Every sentence provides actionable information with no filler.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description provides purpose, probe scope, module prerequisites, failure remediation, and a usage trigger. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing, and return details are covered by the output schema.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed beyond server context, and does not invent parameters.

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+resource: verifying the server can reach a working Drupal site, then lists the four concrete read-only probes it runs. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like drupal_check or status_report because it names the exact checks (Drush, DB, JSON:API index, required modules).

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?

Explicitly says 'Run this first when other tools return opaque connection errors,' giving a clear when-to-use trigger. It also labels the preconditions other tools assume (jsonapi required; dblog and basic_auth recommended), effectively telling the agent when this tool is the right prerequisite step.

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