Single tool 'example' has critical definition gaps. While the tool is explicitly registered with a name and basic description via PHP attributes, the definition falls far short of production standards. Description is only 52 characters ('An example tool showing basic functionality'), lacks context about when to use the tool and what it returns. Input schema is present but minimal, only one parameter 'input' of type string with a 10-character description ('Text to echo back'), providing almost no guidance to an LLM about expected format, length constraints, or valid ranges. Output schema is not documented anywhere in the tool definition or code, the test shows it returns a text field with 'You said: {input}' but this is inferred from test code, not formally documented in the tool schema. No error handling guidance, no recovery instructions, and no mention of side effects (though the tool is READ_ONLY). The tool name 'example' is generic and violates the verb_noun pattern, a production tool should be named after its actual function (e.g., 'echo_text' or 'process_input'). Tool is clearly a placeholder/template rather than a real production service. Parameter descriptions are far below the baseline of 72 characters. Overall composition is sound (does one thing), but definition quality is severely compromised.
An example tool showing basic functionality
Tool name 'example' is generic and does not follow verb_noun pattern. Production tools should have action-oriented names like 'echo_text' or 'process_input' so LLMs can infer function from the name alone.
Tool description is only 52 characters ('An example tool showing basic functionality'). Does not explain WHAT the tool does, WHEN to use it, or what the user can expect. Below the 194-character baseline for production tools. Lacks LLM-friendly context.
Parameter 'input' has only 10-character description ('Text to echo back'). No constraints on format, length, character restrictions, or valid ranges. Far below the 72-character baseline. LLMs cannot determine valid input formats.
Output schema is not documented in the tool definition. Response structure (returns array of objects with 'type' and 'text' fields) is inferred from test code only, not formally specified. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or validate responses.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 35 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No error handling guidance. If 'input' parameter is missing, an InvalidArgumentException is thrown (per tests), but no recovery guidance or actionable error message is documented. LLM cannot self-correct.