get_php_conf_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare action: no indication of permissions required, whether the file content is returned inline, what the size/format limits are, or which config file the 'id'/'type' pair selects.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of all actionable detail.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the agent guessing how to construct a valid call or what to expect back. For this tool complexity level it should do considerably more.

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 0% and both parameters are required, yet the description says nothing about what 'id' identifies (runtime? site? file index?) or what legal values 'type' accepts. The two generic parameter names cannot be resolved from either the schema or the description.

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 verb and resource ('Get PHP config file'), but gives no indication of scope or format. It is indistinguishable from sibling get_php_conf and get_php_conf-related tools (update_php_conf, update_php_conf_file), leaving the agent unable to tell which PHP config tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative such as get_php_conf or list_php_runtimes. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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