get_query_parameters

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. It reveals a read operation and mentions possible errors, but doesn't cover whether site_url must be verified or whether the list is sorted or complete. The risk of mutation is low, but the description is minimal.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises), making it easy to scan. However, it includes boilerplate text like 'Args:' that is already implied by the schema, and the description repeats the parameter information without adding value.

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?

With an output schema present, the return type is covered. The single parameter is simple combativeness the description explains it. Missing are any edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., site must be verified). It's adequate but not rich.

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 0%, but the description explicitly explains the 'site_url' parameter's purpose and provides an Args section. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it doesn't detail the format or constraints beyond type string.

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 retrieves URL normalization parameters for a site, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_query_parameter and remove_query_parameter. The purpose is specific and the resource is named.

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?

It explains the role of URL parameters in normalization, giving context on why one might use this tool Edited whether to use alternatives is not explicit, but the context implies a read operation for configuration. No direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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