get_laravel_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. 'Inspect' hints at read-only behavior but nothing confirms it, and the description never says what health aspects are checked, whether the call can mutate anything, what permissions are needed on cPanel, or what the result 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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral detail noted elsewhere rather than through disciplined editing of a richer text.

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 one-parameter read tool this is passable, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say at least roughly what a 'health and configuration' report contains and confirm it is non-destructive. As written, an agent knows the topic but not the outcome shape.

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% with a single required 'project_root' parameter, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no path syntax or format detail beyond the schema example. 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 ('Inspect') and resource ('health and configuration of a Laravel installation'), which clearly separates it from mutation siblings like deploy_laravel_update or setup_laravel_hosting. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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: an agent can infer this is the post-setup/post-deploy diagnostic check, but the description never says when to call it or what to use instead if the project is not yet installed. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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