Get site settings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' aligns with that. It adds the valuable constraint that an Administrator account is required, which is not in annotations. It also lists the exact settings returned, giving behavioral context. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 that leads with the action ('Read'), enumerates the settings, and closes with the permission requirement. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations. Every part carries information.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what is returned (the settings list) and the access requirement. It does not mention the response format or error behavior, but for a get-settings tool that returns a known set of fields, this is a minor omission. The existence of update_site_settings makes the read intent clear.

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 schema description for site_id is thorough, covering optionality, default behavior, and how to get valid ids. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, but it doesn't need to since the schema fully documents it.

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 the tool reads the site's core settings and enumerates the specific settings (title, tagline, timezone, etc.). This distinguishes it from the broader get_site and the write-oriented update_site_settings sibling without naming them explicitly but via content.

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 the tool's purpose and the administrative prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_site or when not to use it. The only pointer is in the schema (run list_sites for ids), which is parameter guidance, not tool selection guidance. Context is clear but alternatives are not named.

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