Get Staging Site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it 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?

The description is extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the essential information ('Get staging site details by ID'). There is no wasted language, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential return values, or any behavioral context. For a tool that likely returns structured data about a staging site, more information is needed to understand its full scope and usage.

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%, with both parameters ('contentSiteId' and 'stagingSiteId') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that an ID is needed, which is already covered. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('staging site details'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar siblings like 'get_content_site' or 'get_staging_site_page', which also retrieve details about related entities.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that retrieve different types of site data (e.g., 'get_content_site', 'get_staging_site_pages'), the description offers no context about when this specific retrieval is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other get operations.

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