get-site-information

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context by disclosing the exact set of paths and roots returned (home item, Placeholder Settings root, Available Renderings root, shared Data folder, site definition, tenant folder), which tells the agent what it can then feed into other tools.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the addressing rule. The middle enumeration is dense but every listed path is informative, so little is wasted, though the list is long enough to slightly burden scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the burden of explaining the return payload, which it does thoroughly, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile. With 100% schema coverage and zero required params, the description is nearly complete, lacking only explicit guidance on when to prefer it over list-sites or authoring-get-site.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including the 'supply this or siteName' either/or. The description restates the addressing model ('by name, or by any item path inside it') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Returns one site's definition plus the paths the composition tools need') and enumerates the exact artifacts returned, so the agent knows precisely what this fetches. It is clearly single-site focused, implicitly distinct from list-sites, but it never names or contrasts a sibling explicitly.

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?

It hints at usage by noting these are 'the paths the composition tools need,' which implies calling it before composition operations, and explains how to address the site (by name or any item path). However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison against alternatives such as list-sites or authoring-get-site.

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