PhpCodeArcheology

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates valid severity enum values and that 'type' accepts keywords, but omits operational context such as whether this reads from a cache, performs real-time analysis, or has performance implications.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste: the first establishes the core purpose (returns filtered list), and the second immediately lists available filters. Every word 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameters but leaves gaps regarding the structure and content of returned 'code problem' objects. Sufficient for a simple filtering tool but lacks return value documentation.

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?

While the schema descriptions are tautological ('Parameter: severity'), the description adds crucial semantic value by enumerating valid severity values (error/warning/info) and clarifying that 'type' accepts a keyword, significantly clarifying usage beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb (returns) and resource (code problems), and the severity examples (error/warning/info) strongly imply static analysis/linting issues, distinguishing it from siblings like get_health_score or get_hotspots. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to use this versus get_refactoring_priorities or search_code.

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 outlines filtering capabilities but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_code or get_refactoring_priorities. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based recommendations.

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