Get PHP details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about the response scope, including supported and unsupported versions, extension conflict groups, and plan limits, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and return content, and the usage guidance is in a separate concise sentence. Despite the long first sentence, every listed item adds value and the structure is easy to parse.

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 read-only details tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return categories and gives context before update operations. It does not describe the response format or error behavior, but given the simple two-parameter input and read-only annotations, this is reasonably 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; 'domain' and 'username' are only minimally described in the schema, and the description itself does not clarify how they identify the website.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the full PHP configuration for the website' and enumerates the exact data included (versions, extensions, options, plan limits, conflicting groups). It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling hosting_getPHPInfoV1, so the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use it to check the current PHP setup before updating the version, extensions or options.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, but it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternative sibling tools.

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