Route Access Audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it discloses the classification scheme, that an unprotected route is 'the finding', and that controllers are mapped back to declaring files. It implies a read-only audit but never states a safety/read-only guarantee or any permission requirements explicitly.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and keeps the rest purposeful, though lines like 'so a risky route leads straight to code' are slightly stylistic. Overall tight and well-ordered without redundancy.

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 re-explained, and the description covers purpose, targeting, and classification semantics adequately. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool, with only an explicit read-only statement missing.

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 the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that targets are a module by machine name, a DRUPAL_ROOT directory, or the site's own modules/themes by default, mapping naturally onto the 'module' and 'path' parameters including their default behavior.

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 ('Classify every route's access control from *.routing.yml files') and immediately frames its scope as 'the routing half of a pre-deployment review', which distinguishes it from config_security_check, permission_audit, and security_scan siblings. The classification taxonomy (anonymous, permission, roles, entity access, custom callback, or nothing) further pins down what it does.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (pre-deployment review) and explicitly explains targeting by analogy to code_security_scan (one module, a DRUPAL_ROOT directory, or default site modules/themes). It stops short of naming a when-not condition or an alternative tool to prefer in a given case, so it is context-rich but not exclusion-complete.

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