ecp_php_installed_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the full behavioral burden falls on the description. The word 'list' implies a read-only operation, and that is about all the transparency the description offers. It does not disclose what 'installed' means (enabled extensions vs available packages), how invalid or missing versions behave, or what the return payload looks like.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler: 'List installed PHP extensions for a version.' It is efficiently structured and front-loaded. It loses the final point because it is terse to the point of vagueness on the version parameter, but conciseness itself is good.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description nearly suffices. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is left to infer how 'version' should be supplied and what 'extensions' means for the target PHP environment. It also does not point to the sibling that lists installed PHP versions, which would make the tool contextual point complete.

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 sole parameter 'version' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description should compensate. It only restates that the operation is 'for a version,' which adds little beyond the parameter name itself. It omits the expected version format, whether it must match an installed PHP version, or how to obtain valid version strings.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List installed PHP extensions for a version.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling ecp_php_installed_versions (versions vs extensions) without needing the schema. It does not quite earn 5 because it does not explicitly orient the agent against sibling PHP management tools such as ecp_php_get_ini or ecp_php_install.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description states what it does but never says when not to use it, how to discover available PHP versions, or what to do when the requested version is not installed. Related tools like ecp_php_installed_versions could supply the version value, but no such relationship is mentioned.

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