Run read-only Pinoox CLI

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly declares the tool as read-only and non-destructive ('Destructive commands are blocked'). However, it does not explain the error handling for blocked commands or describe the output format, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 that front-load the purpose and safety constraint. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and safety behavior. It lacks details about the return format or potential errors, but the simplicity of CLI output means most agents can infer this. Slight deficit in completeness prevents a 5.

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 input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (command and args). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for 100% 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 states that the tool runs read-only CLI commands ('Run a safe read-only php pinoox or pinx command'). The title 'Run read-only Pinoox CLI' reinforces this purpose, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list_cli_commands, which lists commands rather than executing them).

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 safe, read-only tasks by warning that destructive commands are blocked, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., listing commands first via list_cli_commands). No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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