Get all FAQ questions and answers for this site (Wix FAQ). Grouped by category. Use this to answer common questions about the site — opening hours, parking, policies, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 implies a read-only operation ('Get all') and does not mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. For a simple retrieval tool, this is adequate but could be more explicit about being non-destructive.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.
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?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and how to use it. It covers the returned data (FAQ questions and answers grouped by category) and practical usage scenarios.
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?
There are zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description adds context about grouping by category and usage examples, which is sufficient. Baseline for no parameters 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all FAQ questions and answers for this site'), explicitly mentions grouping by category, and gives concrete examples of usage (opening hours, parking, policies). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_blog_posts or list_products.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to answer common questions about the site'), providing clear context. However, it does not include when-not-to-use or explicit alternatives, though the sibling list provides implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even among similar actions like booking, reservation, and ticket purchase—their descriptions clarify the domain and flow. No two tools could reasonably be confused.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, list_blog_posts). There are no deviations or mixed conventions.
At 28 tools, the surface is larger than ideal for a single server, but each tool covers a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory (bookings, events, store, etc.). It borders on heavy but is still manageable for an agent.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of browsing and acting on a neighborhood directory: search, details, reviews, menus, events, booking, reservations, store, loyalty, and more. No obvious gaps exist for the intended use case.