agency-hosting_listPHPExtensionsForAWebsiteV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently indicates a read-only listing behavior and explains the returned concept (available extensions and enabled status). It omits response format details, but no surprising side effects are implied.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes necessary scope, and contains no filler or redundant wording.

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 one-parameter read-only list, the description adequately conveys what will be returned: available PHP extensions and their enabled state. It does not need a detailed output schema, though mentioning related sibling tools for extension management would add extra navigational 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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents website_uid. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists'), names the resource ('PHP extension'), scopes it to 'Agency Plan website', and clarifies output ('whether it is currently enabled'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like agency-hosting_replaceWebsitePHPExtensionsV1.

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 this is the read-only tool for inspecting PHP extensions, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative references. It does not mention related tools such as agency-hosting_replaceWebsitePHPExtensionsV1 or hosting_getPHPDetailsV1.

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