get-site-info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (sitename, version, language, etc.), providing full transparency beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the main purpose and lists returned items concisely. Every sentence adds value.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of returned data. However, it lacks details on the structure of complex fields like the namespace map or extension list. Sufficient for a read-only info tool, but could be slightly more detailed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining includeStatistics returns live statistics counts and clarifying the wiki parameter usage (key from resources, full URI, or omit for default). This extra context justifies a 4.

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 it returns key facts about the targeted wiki from MediaWiki siteinfo, listing specific items such as general settings, namespace map, extensions, and license. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-page or get-file by focusing on site-wide configuration.

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 when to use this tool (for site info) and mentions the optional includeStatistics parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context of sibling tools helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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