get_site_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states it returns a natural-language summary, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires any permissions, or has performance implications. The absence of destructive hint or read-only annotation makes the lack of clarity more significant.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and briefly mentioning what the summary includes. Every sentence adds value; no filler.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and output nature (natural-language summary). However, with no output schema, mentioning the output format more explicitly (e.g., 'returns a text string') would improve completeness. Still, it is largely adequate.

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% (one parameter described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already explains that site_id is required and should be obtained from list_sites. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a natural-language summary of a site's analytics, covering traffic trends, top content, and referrers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide raw data (e.g., get_pageviews, get_referrers) by offering a synthesized overview.

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 use when an AI-friendly overview is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_pageviews or get_top_pages. No when-not guidance or alternative suggestions are provided.

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