anon_get_onsite

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/safe, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: incident visibility is permission-gated (work:manage vs. normal members), infections, rundown windows (±24h, ≤5), emergency items capped at ≤5, and myPermissions driving frontend visibility. This goes well beyond the 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 front-loads the purpose and systematically describes each aggregate section, but it is long and dense, mixing many sub-fields in one paragraph. It earns its place given the tool's complexity, though it could be more scannable.

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?

With no output schema and a zero-param interface, the description must carry the full burden of explaining the aggregate shape, which it does by enumerating myModules, emergency, contacts, incidents, rundowns, and myPermissions. Minor gaps remain around response format and ordering, but it is largely complete for this complexity.

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?

No parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 4. The description explicitly notes the project is determined by the API key and no projectId is needed, which is useful added context despite the zero-param 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 this is an aggregate endpoint for '现场模式' (onsite mode) scoped to project members, with a GET path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like anon_get_onsite_incidents by aggregating multiple sub-resources, though the exact meaning of '现场模式' is assumed rather than defined.

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 (aggregating onsite data) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as anon_get_onsite_incidents or anon_get_dashboard. The permission-based filtering of incidents and rundowns hints at behavioral expectations, but no guidance distinguishes this tool from other aggregate endpoints.

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