agency-hosting_listPHPOptionsForAWebsiteV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation through the verb 'Lists' and specifies the returned fields, but does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it address authentication or rate limits. For a list tool this is acceptable but not fully explicit.

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, well-structured sentence with the action upfront and a clear list of the information provided. No wasted words.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema; the description fully informs the agent about the response contents (directives, defaults, current values, accepted values). It is complete for the agent to understand what to expect.

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 only parameter website_uid is fully covered by the schema description ('Agency Plan website UID'), and the description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter format or constraints. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('Lists') and the specific resource ('php.ini directives for an Agency Plan website'), and details the information returned (default, current value, accepted values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify PHP options.

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 for inspecting configurable PHP options on an Agency Plan website, and clearly states the scope. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for read-only inspection.

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