Select Site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validate' and returning JSON, but does not explain what validation entails (e.g., network request, error behavior), what 'select' means for subsequent tools, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely sets the working 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—two sentences that immediately communicate the core purpose and return format. Every word earns its place, and the front-loaded verb makes the tool's function instantly clear.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It states the purpose and return format, but lacks details about validation behavior, error handling, or how this selection affects other tools. This leaves notable ambiguity for an AI agent using the tool for multi-step workflows.

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 already describes the only parameter ('site' as 'Base URL of the Discourse site') with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the site concept but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Validate and select') on a specific resource ('a Discourse site'), and distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools which all perform operations on an already-selected site. The return value ('JSON with site URL and title') further clarifies the tool's role.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool's name and sibling set (this must be called before other discourse_* tools), but the description does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. There is no direct guidance on prerequisites or sequencing, so it earns a mid-range score.

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