get-site-info

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that includeStatistics toggles additional data, but does not disclose any other behavioral traits like potential response size or error conditions for missing wikis. With good annotation coverage, the description is adequate but not exceptional.

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 paragraph that is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Returns key facts about the targeted wiki'). It lists the returned categories concisely and provides a clear action for the boolean parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool complexity (simple read-only info retrieval), the description covers what is returned, including the effect of the optional parameter. No output schema is present, but the list of returned items is sufficiently detailed. It might benefit from noting that the response could be large if many extensions are installed, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds specific examples of what includeStatistics returns (page, article, edit counts, etc.), which provides extra context. However, it does not explain the wiki parameter beyond what the schema says, so overall the description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 that the tool returns key facts about a wiki, listing specific categories: general settings, namespace map, extensions, license. It also mentions the optional includeStatistics parameter to get counts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-page or get-pages, which focus on page content rather than site metadata.

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 explains when to set includeStatistics, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-page or list-wikis. The usage context is implied (for wiki metadata), but lack of explicit guidance on when not to use it or what distinguishes it from similar read tools reduces clarity.

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