get_php_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the remote-SSH execution model and the conditional branch (mod_php checks only run if Apache is installed), which implies a read-only collection. It does not state permission requirements (root vs unprivileged), what happens if PHP is absent, whether partial results are returned, or how failures surface — meaningful gaps for a multi-step remote probe.

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 that leads with the verb, resource, and transport, then lists collected artifacts in a compact clause chain. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place by naming a distinct data point; the nested "if Apache is installed…" aside slightly complicates an otherwise linear sentence.

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 no explanation, and the description covers what is collected well enough for a read-only collector. The shortfall is on the input side: seven undocumented parameters with no behavioral notes on authentication choice or timeouts, which leaves the agent guessing at connection setup.

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% across seven parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not: host, port, user, timeout, key_path, password, and accept_new_hostkey are never mentioned. Only "via SSH" implicitly hints at host/credentials, leaving the timeout and host-key acceptance semantics — both behaviorally significant — completely undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Collects PHP details from a remote Linux host via SSH") and then enumerates exactly what is gathered: CLI version/SAPI, php-cgi and php-fpm binaries and their versions, running FPM/CGI processes, and mod_php status. No sibling in the list targets PHP, so an agent can route this tool unambiguously.

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 by the enumerated subject matter (PHP stack inspection on a remote host); there is no explicit "use this when…" statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent can infer the context but receives no decision rule for choosing this over the package- or service-oriented siblings.

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