Status Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only status, enumerates the severity vocabulary, documents default filtering and return shape, and pre-empts a confusing failure mode by explaining that a checker breakage surfaces as a verbatim drush error rather than a tool bug.

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 one-line purpose, then the return contract, then defaults and overrides, then the error caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and it is short enough to scan.

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 two-parameter read-only report tool with an output schema, nothing essential is missing: purpose, default filter behavior, override params, and failure semantics are all covered, and return values are described even though the output schema already exists.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: include_ok is tied to 'the whole report' and severity_filter to 'one level', and the description supplies the enum-like severity values ('error', 'warning', 'info', 'ok') the schema lacks. It stops short of stating whether severity_filter accepts a single string vs a list.

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 and resource ('Run the site's status report') and anchors it to a recognizable artifact ('what /admin/reports/status shows'), which immediately distinguishes it from vague siblings like health_check or config_status. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Explains the default behavior (errors and warnings returned) and the two knobs that change it, which implies when to use each option. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer this over health_check, security_audit, or config_status, so routing guidance is only implied.

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