rolldev_php_script

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 states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like execution environment requirements (e.g., container must be running), potential side effects (e.g., script output or errors), security implications, or performance considerations. This is inadequate for a tool that runs arbitrary scripts.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of running scripts in a container environment, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address execution outcomes, error handling, or dependencies. Sibling tools suggest a development environment context, but the description doesn't leverage this for completeness.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying execution context ('inside the php-fpm container'), which is minimal. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameters like script path or arguments.

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 clearly states the action ('Run') and target ('a PHP script inside the php-fpm container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'rolldev_magento_cli' or 'rolldev_composer', which might also involve PHP execution in similar contexts, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a running container or specific project setup, nor does it compare to siblings like 'rolldev_magento_cli' for Magento-specific commands. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.

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