Get PHP INI Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minor context (e.g., reports scanned directories) but reveals no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey. No contradiction with 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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with key actions (reports) and objects. Could benefit from structural elements like bullet points, but remains efficient and clear.

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 tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides reasonable context by listing what is reported (paths, scanned directories, important directives). It does not detail return format but sufficiently informs the agent about the output scope.

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% for the single optional parameter 'directive', which already explains its purpose with an example. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 active php.ini paths, scanned directories, and important ini directives. The name 'get_php_ini' matches this purpose well, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_php_info' which likely covers broader 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 for retrieving PHP INI information but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'get_php_info' or 'get_extension_info'. No exclusion criteria or context is provided.

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