Detect PHP Framework

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and safe. The description adds context about analyzing the project root and detecting specific frameworks, but does not disclose behavior such as what happens when no framework is found or if it scans all files. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 focused sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

The description lacks expected details about the return value or output format, which is important for a detection tool. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., framework name, version, confidence). No output schema is provided, so the description should compensate.

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 for the single optional parameter 'projectPath'. The description mentions 'project root' which aligns with the parameter, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema's auto-detection hint. 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?

The description clearly states the tool detects the PHP framework by analyzing the project root, listing specific examples (Laravel, Symfony, WordPress). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on linting, testing, or package management.

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 does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites. Given the sibling context, it's implied for framework detection, but no explicit guidelines are provided.

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