Get PHP Extension Info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the exact information reported (version, functions, constants, etc.), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictory behavior is mentioned.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. It covers the main functionality without superfluous words. However, it could be slightly more structured by briefly listing the reported items.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately lists the types of information returned. It provides a good understanding of what to expect. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior for missing extensions, which is a minor gap.

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 clear description and examples for the 'extension' parameter. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. No extra parameter details are provided.

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 it reports version, functions, constants, ini entries, and dependencies of a PHP extension. The verb 'raporlar' (reports) and the specific resource ('PHP eklentisi') make the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_php_info' which covers general PHP configuration.

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 implies usage when needing details about a specific PHP extension, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_php_info' or 'analyze_php_code'. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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