Run an allowlisted or configured read-only Artisan command

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

The description emphasizes the tool is read-only, but annotations set destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, directly contradicting the description. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's safety.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) with no filler. It immediately states the tool's purpose and provides the key usage distinction. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, the description omits critical details like error handling for non-allowlisted commands, return format, or clarification of the annotation contradiction. It is incomplete for safe and effective agent use.

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?

Only 2 out of 5 parameters (cwd, project) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, such as valid command names or how to pass arguments. Given low coverage (<50%), the description fails to compensate.

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 title and description clearly state that the tool runs only allowlisted or configured read-only Artisan commands. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling laravel_run_artisan for write-capable commands, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (for read-only commands) versus laravel_run_artisan (for write-capable commands). However, it does not elaborate on scenarios where the tool should not be used or prerequisites like ensuring the command is allowlisted.

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