Сводка по сайту

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent. The description adds the important behavioral constraint that confirmed site rights are required, and it clarifies the structure of the response (including problem categories). This adds value beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences: the first lists the return fields concisely, the second states the permission requirement. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no superfluous content.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields and their meanings, including site_problems categories. The permission prerequisite is noted, making the tool's usage context complete for the agent.

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 input schema fully covers the single optional parameter host_id with description and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reiterating the requirement for rights, so it meets the baseline for 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 tool 'returns site summary statistics' and enumerates specific output fields (sqi, searchable_pages_count, site_problems). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_site_diagnostics.

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 for retrieving site summaries but does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as get_site_diagnostics. It does mention a prerequisite (confirmed rights), providing some contextual guidance, but lacks exclusions or alternative tool references.

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