Site Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that this reads the current configuration and listing the exact tracking flags and metadata returned. There is no contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first fronts the purpose and key data fields, the second draws a clear contrast with the update counterpart. The tracking flag list is long but earns its place by signaling what the agent can expect from the response.

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?

This is a simple, one-parameter read operation with strong annotations, so the bar for completeness is lower. The description effectively substitutes for an output schema by listing the major returned fields, though the trailing 'etc.' leaves the exact response shape slightly underspecified. Overall, an agent has enough to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the siteId parameter already includes a helpful description ('numeric ID or domain identifier'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate: the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get full site configuration and metadata' for a site. It enumerates concrete content (domain, name, creation date, tracking flags), making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also positions itself against rybbit_update_site_config, helping an agent tell read vs. write apart.

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 explicitly frames this tool as complementary to rybbit_update_site_config and notes that it 'reads the current config,' giving a clear read-vs-write selection cue. It does not enumerate when to prefer this over other getter siblings like rybbit_get_config, but the context is sufficient for most selection decisions.

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