Laravel Artisan

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's minimal addition ('runs commands') is adequate. No contradiction with annotations, but the description does not elaborate on side effects like filesystem changes or output behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It immediately states the purpose and constraint, making it easy to parse.

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 simplicity of the tool (running a command), the description covers the essentials. It could mention that the tool executes the command and returns output, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add extra parameter info. However, it could mention that the command is executed in the project directory, but this is not necessary.

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 that the tool runs Laravel artisan commands, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like symfony_console or other PHP tools by specifying 'only in Laravel projects.'

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 a clear when-to-use condition ('only in Laravel projects'), which helps the agent avoid misuse. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list implicitly provides alternatives. This is slightly above basic.

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