PHP project health check

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds context by listing the types of checks performed (composer, runtime, static analysis, style, security, tests) and the output (prioritized report), which enriches the behavioral understanding beyond 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the overall purpose but does not detail the output format or structure (e.g., whether report is JSON or text, how issues are prioritized). Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial, but the description is adequate for a straightforward tool.

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 all 7 parameters having descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 it runs composer, PHP runtime, static analysis, style, security, and test checks in a single call, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on individual checks (e.g., run_phpcs, composer_audit) by aggregating multiple checks.

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 as an all-in-one health check but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus individual sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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