printix_get_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get' implying a read operation, but doesn't disclose error behavior (e.g., 404 if site not found), required permissions, or what the response contains. For a simple read tool, some minimal disclosure would be expected.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets to the point immediately. There is zero waste, and it is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), so a minimal description can suffice. However, the description doesn't mention what the response contains (e.g., site details) or any prerequisites. It's adequate for an agent to infer the basic call, but lacks the richness expected from a well-documented tool.

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% (siteId is described as 'Printix site ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the parameter name. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 the action (Get), the resource (single Printix site), and the key detail (by ID). This clearly distinguishes it from list_sites, which retrieves multiple sites. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get_* siblings beyond the resource name, which is the expected pattern.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that you need a valid site ID (perhaps from list_sites) or that this is for a specific known site. The description is silent on usage context, leaving the agent to infer that it's for a specific site given an ID.

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