Get Content Site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what permissions are needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens with invalid IDs, or what format/details are returned. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'content site details', 'by ID') earns its place. This is a model of efficient description writing for a simple tool.

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 read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but leaves significant gaps about behavioral characteristics, return values, and usage context. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally hint at what 'details' are returned, but it doesn't.

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 schema has 100% description coverage with one parameter clearly documented as 'Content Site ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it simply repeats that retrieval is 'by ID' without explaining what constitutes a valid ID, format requirements, or where to obtain IDs. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Get content site details by ID', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'get_content_sites' (plural) by specifying retrieval of a single site by ID. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other similar tools like 'get_staging_site' beyond the resource name difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_content_site' over 'get_content_sites' (for multiple sites) or 'get_staging_site' (for staging vs content sites). There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual recommendations provided.

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