Siteprint examples

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds content scope about the two products and pricing, but does not add operational behavior such as return format or limitations.

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?

It is a single well-formed sentence that front-loads the key scope: two products, their functions, and pricing. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 zero-parameter informational tool with clear read-only annotations and no output schema, the description states exactly what information the tool covers. Nothing essential is missing for correct selection.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 this tool explains Siteprint's two products and their pricing, giving a specific informational resource. It is easy to distinguish from design/setup siblings, though it does not explicitly name 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?

Usage is implied by the 'about' framing and the stated product/pricing content, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus get_setup or the design-related siblings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by describing the shape of the returned artifact (concrete design tokens rather than a summary or link), which is valuable given there is no output schema. It stops short of saying how large/verbose the document is or how an invalid id behaves.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the concrete fields rather than padding. Dense but readable; 'Siteprint' is internal jargon that costs a little clarity.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned token set is the right move and partly covers the return value. However, the id semantics and the routing decision versus list_example_designs are left unresolved, so the definition is adequate rather than complete.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage beyond an enum of four values. The description only weakly implies the parameter by saying 'one example scan', giving no hint that id is one of linear/stripe/ramp/cal or what those represent. It does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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: it fetches the DESIGN.md 'Siteprint' produced by one example scan, and enumerates the design tokens it contains (colours, type, spacing, corners, layout). It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_example_designs, so an agent must infer that this retrieves one artifact while the sibling enumerates 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no mention of the obvious alternative (call list_example_designs first to discover valid ids). The phrase 'as a design direction for new UI' hints at the use case but never states it as guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and closed-world profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context (a fixed set of four public sites, each with a built page) but says nothing about ordering, id format, or stability of the list.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the data is and then what it returns; no filler. Slightly noun-phrase-heavy at the start, which delays the action verb, but the size is appropriate.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description conveys the return ('ids') and the nature of the items, which is the essential information an agent needs. It could say more about what each id maps to, but nothing critical is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify and it correctly makes no parameter claims.

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 identifies the resource concretely (real Siteprint scans of four public sites plus the original coding-agent-built pages) rather than restating the name, and the closing clause routes it against its sibling get_example_design. It never states the verb 'list' explicitly, but the fixed-size set and return ('ids') make the purpose 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?

Stating 'Returns ids for get_example_design' tells the agent this is the discovery step that must precede the fetch tool, which is real usage context. It stops short of naming get_setup or saying when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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