Code Quality Report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden: it does not say whether this is read-only, which tools run by default when 'tools' is null, whether those tools must be installed/available, or how long a multi-tool run takes. For a tool that shells out to several external analyzers, that is a significant disclosure gap.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format need not be described. But for a multi-tool aggregator with two undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits the default tool set, path scope, and execution prerequisites — the agent cannot predict what will actually run.

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 0% for two parameters. The description implies the 'tools' parameter concept ('multiple code quality tools') but never states allowed tool names, the default when null, or whether 'path' is a module, directory, or file path. It adds almost no meaning beyond the bare schema keys.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run ... tools and generate combined report'), and the word 'multiple'/'combined' implicitly distinguishes it from single-tool siblings such as code_audit_phpstan and code_sniffer. However, it never names those siblings or enumerates which tools are aggregated, so an agent must infer the boundary from the adjective alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no condition that selects this aggregator over code_audit_phpstan / code_sniffer / code_sniffer / deprecation_scan. The only signal is the implicit 'combined report' contrast, which the agent has to construct itself.

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