Laravilt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that results are assembled from two sources (GitHub releases then CHANGELOG.md entries), which is useful context, but it says nothing about upstream GitHub API calls, rate limits, or what happens for an unknown package.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the use case following. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return content, and parameters are fully documented in the schema. Only minor gaps remain: no error behavior for a nonexistent package and no note that data comes from a remote source.

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 100%: 'limit' documents its 1-50 range and default 10, and 'package' documents its format with examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get the release history of a Laravilt package') and then enumerates the composition of that history: tagged versions, release dates, GitHub release notes, and CHANGELOG.md entries. This scope is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as get-latest-versions or get-package without opening either 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?

Provides explicit usage context ('useful for upgrade notes and for checking when a feature or fix shipped'), which tells the agent what class of question this tool answers. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g., when only the newest version is needed, use get-latest-versions), so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the description only needed to add context. It does so by disclosing the return content (package-to-version map plus ready-to-paste composer require lines) and upstream sources, though it doesn't state freshness/caching behavior, which matters for a version-pinning tool.

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?

Two clauses, zero waste, front-loaded with the return value followed by the use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what comes back and when to reach for it. The only nuance an agent might want – data freshness – is minor and does not prevent correct invocation.

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 the baseline of 4 applies; there are no argument semantics for the description to clarify.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get a compact map of every Laravilt package to its latest released version', and it names the data sources (Packagist and GitHub releases). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get-package or get-changelog without opening any 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?

Explicit timing guidance: 'Use it before writing composer.json constraints or upgrade instructions so versions are never guessed.' This gives clear context, but it never names an alternative sibling (e.g., get-package) or states when-not to use it, so no exclusions are present.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is already covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the returned content set (README summary, composer.json requirements, frontend paths, docs index, recent changelog entries), which matters because there is no output schema.

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 (verb + resource first), then a dense but purposeful list of returned facets. Slightly run-on, yet every enumerated item earns its place given the absence of an output schema.

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 output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return payload, and the schema covers the sole parameter. What is missing is a brief note on failure behavior versus its narrower siblings; otherwise it is self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage — the schema already documents the format, gives examples ('panel', 'forms', 'laravilt/tables') and points to list-packages. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get details about one Laravilt package') and enumerates exactly what is returned: README summary, latest version/install command, requirements, frontend support, docs index, changelog. This clearly separates it from sibling list-packages (enumerate names) and get-changelog (single concern).

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?

Usage is only implied: the aggregation of many facets signals 'use this for a full single-package overview', but the description never states when to prefer it over the narrower siblings (get-changelog, get-latest-versions, read-doc) or any prerequisite. The one useful routing hint ('Use list-packages to see all names') lives in the schema, not the description.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description usefully discloses the concrete install command (`php artisan laravilt:install --stack=vue|react`) and enumerates the guide's contents: requirements, official docs, stack-specific package support, and current versions. It does not describe format, length, or pagination of the returned guide, but the safety-critical behavior is fully settled.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the purpose and then lists the guide's covered topics; every clause carries information. The phrase 'the official installation docs from laravilt/laravilt' is slightly awkward and could be trimmed without loss.

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 output schema, the description does the work of enumerating what the guide returns (requirements, docs, stack support, versions), so an agent knows what to expect. Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the content is versioned or how it relates to the sibling doc tools.

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 100% and the single `stack` parameter is fully documented with an enum and default in the schema. The description only restates the vue|react choice in command form ('--stack=vue|react') and notes that the stack determines package support, adding slight semantic value over the schema rather than new detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Step-by-step instructions for installing Laravilt') and scopes it to a new Laravel 13 app, which is far more precise than a generic docs tool. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the doc-reading siblings (read-doc, search-docs, list-docs), so an agent must infer the boundary from the install-specific framing alone.

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?

Usage context is explicit: this is for installing Laravilt on a new Laravel 13 application, and the stack choice drives which packages apply. There are no exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. what to use once installation is done, or for upgrading an existing app), so it is clear but not routing-grade guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the exact file set surfaced and the fact that output shape differs (titled tree vs compact tree) depending on whether a package is supplied.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded before the meta-package note. The first sentence is dense but every clause (file list, two output modes) carries information an agent needs.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, input semantics, and the content of both return variants. Nothing required to call it correctly is 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds the key semantic distinction the schema only hints at — package given yields titles, omission yields a compact all-package tree. It also flags that laravilt/laravilt is the meta package holding the main guide.

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 — show the documentation tree for one package — and enumerates exactly what is included (README, CHANGELOG, composer.json, Markdown under docs/). This clearly separates it from siblings like list-packages, read-doc, and search-docs.

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?

The two modes are described (pass a package for a titled tree, omit it for a compact tree of all packages), which implies when to use each. But no sibling alternative is named or excluded — an agent must infer that read-doc is for content and search-docs for querying.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the return payload's shape, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention auth or rate-limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the payload description followed by the routing instruction; every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the name or annotations.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value detail and the ordering relative to sibling tools, leaving nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The description correctly implies a single no-argument call over the whole package set.

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 (list Laravilt packages) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: description, latest version, last release date, composer install command, and repo URL. An agent can distinguish this from get-package or get-latest-versions without opening any 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?

Explicitly positions the tool as the discovery step ('Use this first... before calling get-package, list-docs or search-docs'), naming three alternative siblings and the ordering condition that selects this one over them.

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

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds useful context beyond them by disclosing what the content is assembled from and that it is kept 'up-to-date' from the latest README/docs, which sets freshness expectations. It does not describe the return shape (a single assembled guide? links?) or how it relates to the other doc tools, so it stays at a moderate level.

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 sentence that front-loads what the tool is and then itemizes its coverage. The content list is long but every item maps to a distinct section of the guide, so it earns its place; there is no filler, though the list-heavy tail is dense 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 no-parameter, read-only documentation tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough scope detail for an agent to know what it will get, including that it links to every plugin document. The only real gap is the absence of orientation against the sibling doc/read/search tools, which is a minor omission rather than a blocking one.

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; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description appropriately spends its words on content scope instead of inventing parameter semantics.

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 names the specific resource (a guide to building Laravilt plugins) and enumerates the exact topical scope: generators, plugin structure, plugin classes, resource/page/widget registration, and Vue/React frontends. It is clearly distinguishable in topic from siblings like get-changelog or list-packages, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with read-doc or search-docs, which cover similar documentation ground.

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?

Usage is implied by the topic scoping rather than stated: an agent infers this is the tool for plugin-development documentation. There is no explicit 'use this instead of read-doc/search-docs when...' guidance or any condition for choosing among the doc-oriented siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotency, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: long documents are split into pages and a 'page' argument continues the read. It says nothing about the shape or size of the returned content, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter provenance and pagination behavior — every sentence carries information and none repeats the schema.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers provenance and pagination, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Only the return-content expectations (format/truncation beyond paging) are left unstated, a minor gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema doesn't: that 'page' exists because long documents are paged and is used to continue an in-progress read, and that 'path' values originate from sibling listing tools.

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 ('Read a full documentation file from a Laravilt package') and supplies a concrete call example with package/path, so an agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like get-package or list-docs immediately.

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 tells the agent where the required 'path' and 'package' values come from (search-docs, list-docs, get-package), which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating when this tool should be preferred over the guide-style siblings, so it's clear context without full alternatives coverage.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value on top by disclosing the return shape ('ranked snippets with the package, file path and GitHub link') and the indexed corpus (docs, READMEs, changelogs), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, return value second, usage pattern last. Every sentence carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 output schema, the description compensates by describing the return value (ranked snippets with package, path, GitHub link). Combined with annotation-covered safety and fully documented params, an agent has everything needed to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, package and limit (including default 8 and range 1-25). The description reinforces the query style with examples but adds no syntax, format, or constraint meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Full-text search across the documentation, READMEs and changelogs of all Laravilt packages') and scopes it to all packages. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list-docs (enumerate) and read-doc (open a specific hit).

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 concrete usage guidance ('Use short keyword queries') with real examples and names the follow-up alternative ('then open a hit with read-doc'), establishing the search-then-read workflow. It does not state explicit exclusions or when to prefer list-docs/get-package instead, so it falls just short of a 5.

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