atlas_site

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

No annotations or output schema are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the result includes a full entry and button map, but says nothing about read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or error cases.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical clarifies the button-map contents efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations or output schema, the description explains some return content but leaves the parameter meaning and sibling alternatives undefined. That is adequate but has clear gaps for reliable invocation.

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 only parameter, site, is a required string, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not say whether site expects a name, ID, URL, slug, or other identifier, so it adds no usable meaning beyond the property name.

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 names the resource ('one site's full entry') and details its content (button map with pages, controls by role and name), so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as atlas_find or atlas_guard, so it falls short of a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus atlas_find/atlas_guard or when not to use it. The closest guidance is an implicit 'fetch a site entry' use case, which is not sufficient for reliable tool selection.

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