ddev_describe

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes that the project must be 'running', which is a useful prerequisite, and lists what information is included. It does not explicitly state whether the command is read-only or what happens if the project is not running, but the 'Get a detailed description' wording implies a non-destructive inspection.

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 short and front-loaded, immediately stating the tool's purpose and scope. It includes aliases and a usage line without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence provides useful information, and the pointer to 'ddev help describe' is a concise way to handle further details.

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 that there is no output schema, the description does a good job of summarizing what will be returned (name, location, URL, status, MySQL connection details, Mailpit, etc.) and notes the 'running' prerequisite. It does not describe error cases or explicitly state that it is read-only, but for a simple describe tool with one optional parameter, it is nearly 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 input schema already fully describes the single parameter with 100% coverage: 'Path to the DDEV project directory'. The description's usage line uses 'projectname' rather than 'projectPath', which could introduce slight ambiguity but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a detailed description of a running DDEV project', listing example contents like name, location, URL, status, MySQL connection details, and Mailpit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ddev_export_db, ddev_logs, or ddev_snapshot, which perform different operations.

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 usage syntax ('Usage: ddev describe [projectname] [flags]') and points to 'ddev help describe' for full options, giving some practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as ddev_list or ddev_logs, or mention conditions or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than clearly articulated.

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