get_site_details

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It lists the expected response fields (color palette, technologies, etc.), which informs the agent of the output scope, and 'inline screenshot' suggests an embedded image. However, it does not state side effects (likely read-only but not explicit), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. This is moderate transparency for a read-oriented tool.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core concept ('Get the design DNA') then enumerates contents efficiently. There is no fluff or repetition. The phrase 'design DNA' is slightly stylistic but not verbose. It earns its place, and the structure is clean.

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 one-parameter read tool, listing the expected fields provides basic sufficiency. However, the description does not clarify how it differs from get_site_elements (which likely returns design elements specifically), nor does it describe the response format (e.g., whether the screenshot is a URL or base64). Given the sibling overlap and absence of an output schema, more contextual guidance would improve completeness.

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 description fully covers the slug parameter, including a pattern and an example ('l-i-s-a'). The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides—it only says 'one Awwwards site,' which duplicates the schema's context. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 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 specifies a clear verb ('Get') and a resource ('design DNA' of one Awwwards site), then enumerates the included content (color palette, technologies, design elements, awards, description, inline screenshot). This is distinct from search_sites (which lists sites) and capture_live_site (which captures a live site), but the overlap with get_site_elements is not explicitly addressed. The term 'design DNA' is a bit stylized, but the clarification of contents makes the purpose understandable.

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 implies usage for retrieving details of a specific site after obtaining a slug, as the parameter example references search_sites. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_site_elements or other siblings, nor does it mention conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer the usage context from the parameter and the phrase 'one Awwwards site.'

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