Get site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns site details including device counts, but does not mention whether it is a read-only operation, idempotent, or what happens if the UID is invalid. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation backup.

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 sentence of 12 words, with no redundant or superfluous information. It is front-loaded with the purpose and includes a useful detail about device counts.

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?

Given that this is a simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states the resource, input, and a key return value (device counts). It could hint at other typical details returned, but for a straightforward lookup it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% (parameter 'siteUid' has a description 'Site UID'). The description adds 'by its UID', which reinforces the parameter but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action ('get details of a site') and the resource ('site by its UID'), including a specific piece of information returned ('device counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'datto_list_sites' (lists all sites) and 'datto_get_site_settings' (gets settings only).

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 when you need details of a specific site, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as 'datto_list_sites' or 'datto_get_site_settings'. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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