get_site_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-like operation by saying it 'verifies connection and returns data', but it does not explicitly state that it is side-effect-free, whether authentication is required, what happens on connection failure, or any rate-limit or session implications. This is minimal transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose (connection verification) and then specifies the returned data. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy with the schema, which is empty.

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 low-complexity: zero parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description gives a general sense of the return payload ('site data and authenticated user data') but does not enumerate expected fields or explain edge cases. Since there is no output schema, a slightly richer description of what specific data is returned would improve completeness. Still, the description is adequate for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameter-less tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps. The description's mention of the data returned is enough to orient the agent without any input schema detail.

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 a specific verb ('Verifica' / 'devuelve') and a concrete resource: site data and authenticated user data. It clearly identifies a distinct purpose from the sibling tools, which all focus on courses, files, or assignments. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 usage: it is appropriate for verifying connectivity and retrieving site/user information. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The context of sibling tools makes the intended use reasonably inferable, but the description itself provides limited routing guidance.

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