Run PHPUnit directly

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

Annotations are minimal (no readOnly, destructive hints). The description does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., output files, report generation), permissions needed, or execution environment details beyond 'auto-detects the relevant app root'. More context on process behavior is needed.

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, front-loaded sentence of 18 words. Every word is necessary and directly relevant. No fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values or output format. It does not. Also, the tool runs a command; details about stdout/stderr handling or success/failure signals are absent. With 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient.

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 description adds context for 'filter', 'test suite', and 'path', but schema coverage is only 33% (only 'cwd' and 'project' have descriptions in the schema). The description does not explain 'timeoutSeconds' or 'cwd' behavior comprehensively. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 the verb ('Runs'), the resource ('vendor/bin/phpunit'), and the context ('from a Laravel/Composer app root'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'run_pest' (another test runner) and 'run_tests' (generic).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'run_pest' or 'run_tests'). The description does not specify prerequisites or scenarios where PHPUnit is preferred over other test runners.

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