getSiteSettings

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only operation via 'Get', discloses the required credentials, and adds a non-obvious caveat about timezone affecting schedule times. It could go further by mentioning output shape or error behavior, but the key auth and read-only traits are present.

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 front-loaded with 'Get full site settings' and the following enumeration, while the timezone caveat and credential requirement each earn their place. It is a bit long because of the settings list, but it is not padded.

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 description adequately explains what data is returned and what auth is required, and gives a practical timezone warning. However, it omits any guidance on the siteId parameter, possible default-site behavior, or output structure, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. For a one-parameter getter this is workable but not fully complete.

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 0% and the description never mentions siteId, how to obtain it, or whether it can be omitted. The only hint is the word 'site' in the description, which is not enough to meaningfully explain the lone parameter. The parameter name and minLength are left to carry all semantic weight.

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?

Tthe description states a specific operation, 'Get full site settings', and lists a concrete set of settings (timezone, NTP servers, mesh, band steering, LED, etc.) that make the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling getters, but the 'full site settings' framing distinguishes it from narrower tools like getFirewallSetting or getSsidDetail.

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 provides a clear practical trigger: 'Check the timezone here before trusting any schedule time.' It also states the authentication precondition OMADA_WEB_USERNAME/OMADA_WEB_PASSWORD. It does not explicitly name alternatives or excluded cases, so it falls short of a full when-to-use guide.

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