get_site_audit_project_default_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it 'does not consume API credits and does not require projectId,' specifies it 'returns server-side recommended defaults,' and details differences from project settings (e.g., domain='', name='', pagesLimit=5000). This covers safety, cost, and output behavior comprehensively.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage scenarios, workflow steps, and behavioral details. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, such as clarifying differences from project settings and API credit implications, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (retrieving default settings for project creation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage workflow, behavioral traits (no credits required, no projectId), and key output fields, ensuring an AI agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on usage and output semantics, mentioning key fields in the returned object (domain, name, pagesLimit, scheduleRepeatOption) without redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description adds value beyond 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves 'DEFAULT TEMPLATE settings for creating new projects' and clarifies it's 'NOT settings of existing project,' providing a specific verb (get) and resource (default template settings). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_site_audit_settings' by emphasizing defaults versus existing project data.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to 'populate new project form with sensible defaults, avoid hardcoding values, ensure settings stay current.' It outlines a clear workflow (call this, modify returned object, call set_site_audit_settings) and names the alternative tool ('set_site_audit_settings') for saving modifications.

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