PhpCodeArcheology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. While 'Returns' implies a read-only operation, the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as caching behavior, performance characteristics for large codebases, authentication requirements, or error conditions (e.g., handling of uninitialized projects).

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, efficient sentence without redundancy. Key information (the verb and return value categories) is front-loaded. It could potentially be improved by adding scoping context, but as written it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description partially compensates by enumerating the specific data points returned. However, it omits structural details (e.g., whether these are nested objects or flat fields) and scope context, making it minimally adequate but incomplete for a rich aggregation endpoint.

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?

Per calibration rules, 0 parameters yields a baseline score of 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter documentation, and the empty schema requires no semantic elaboration.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and lists distinct resources (code health score, grade, technical debt score, problem counts, project statistics), clarifying what data is retrieved. However, it does not differentiate this aggregate endpoint from siblings like 'get_metrics' or 'get_problems', leaving ambiguity about when to use the high-level overview versus specific metric endpoints.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_metrics' or 'get_problems', nor does it mention prerequisites or scoping (e.g., whether it analyzes the current project directory or requires explicit path configuration). It simply lists output fields.

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