Run Psalm Static Analysis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, covering safety. Description adds 'statik analiz yapar' (does static analysis) and the level range, but no extra behavioral traits like output format or permissions. With annotations, score 3 is baseline.

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?

Two sentences, very concise with no extraneous words. Front-loaded: first sentence states core purpose. The second sentence adds complementarity and level range. Minor deduction for contradictory level info.

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?

With 5 parameters and no output schema, description omits what the tool returns (e.g., error list, JSON, exit code). Static analysis tools typically produce output; failing to mention it leaves agents uncertain. Annotations cover safety but not completeness of context.

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%, so baseline is 3. However, description claims level can be 'auto' while schema enum only includes '1'-'8', creating a contradiction. This reduces clarity for agents. No additional parameter meaning beyond schema.

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 that the tool runs static analysis with Psalm, and distinguishes itself by noting it is complementary to PHPStan. The verb 'run' and resource 'Psalm' are specific. Sibling tools like run_phpcs, run_phpmd, run_phpinsights show differentiation.

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 mentions 'PHPStan'ın tamamlayıcısıdır' (complement to PHPStan) implying usage context, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like run_phpcs or run_phpmd. No when-not-to or prerequisites provided.

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