Run PHP Magic Number Detector (PHPMND)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the tool detects numeric constants and suggests const definitions, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behaviors like output format or side effects.

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 one sentence, very concise. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary detail. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a simple read-only analysis tool, the combination of annotations and parameter descriptions covers safety and input. However, the description lacks context about output (e.g., whether it returns results inline or as a message) and does not explain how it fits into the workflow. The tool is functional but not fully complete.

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, including explanations for filepath, exclude, extensions, and projectPath. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely summarizes the function. 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 that the tool detects numeric constants and recommends defining them as const (suggesting refactoring). It is specific about the verb (detects) and resource (numeric constants), but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like run_phpmd or run_phpcpd, which have different scopes.

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 alternative PHP analysis tools. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to similar tools in the sibling list.

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