Run PHPUnit Tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. Description adds that it runs tests and supports coverage, which is consistent but does not significantly expand on behavioral traits 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?

Description is two sentences in Turkish, concise and to the point with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key features.

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 schema covers all parameters and annotations provide safety context, the description adequately summarizes the tool's function. It mentions path, filter, testdox, and coverage, leaving out projectPath and coverageDriver but these are covered by schema. No output schema, but return values are standard test output.

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?

All 6 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description summarizes key parameters (path, filter, testdox, coverage) but does not add new meaning beyond what is in the schema. 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?

Description clearly states it runs PHPUnit tests for the project, with specific features like path, filter, testdox format, and optional coverage. It is distinct from sibling tools that are not focused on running PHPUnit tests.

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?

Description implies usage for running PHPUnit tests but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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