uisp_get_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and does state that the response includes status and, conditionally, a UCRM reference. However, it does not describe behavior for invalid or missing IDs, the read-only nature explicitly, or how the optional ucrmDetails flag changes the returned structure.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the operation, resource granularity, and the notable returned data efficiently without repeating the tool name or schema verbatim.

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 two-parameter GET tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and key return fields. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify the default behavior of ucrmDetails or the response when the site ID is not found, but these are minor for a basic single-record retrieval.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds mild value by clarifying that status is part of the detail and that the UCRM reference appears only when linked, but it does not substantially go beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a single site's detail'), and names key returned content (status and UCRM client/service reference). It is clearly distinct from list-style siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with tools like uisp_get_site_statistics or uisp_get_site_traffic_summary.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as uisp_list_sites or uisp_get_site_statistics. The phrase 'single site' implies retrieving one specific record, but alternatives, prerequisites, and exclusion conditions are left to inference. The schema's note that the id comes from uisp_list_sites is helpful but not part of the description itself.

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