site_is_frozen

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what 'frozen' means operationally, whose files are checked, or whether an unfrozen/unknown state is possible.

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 brief and front-loads the purpose in the first line. The 'Args:' docstring block is redundant padding that duplicates the schema, but the overall size is appropriate for a trivial query tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. For a single-parameter read tool the definition is minimally viable, but the lack of any usage context or clarification of what 'frozen' means leaves an agent with gaps when deciding between this and the freeze/unfreeze siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for the single parameter. It merely restates the parameter name as 'ID сайта', offering no format, range, or lookup guidance (e.g., whether it is a site_list identifier).

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 phrase 'Статус блокировки файлов сайта' identifies the resource (site file freeze status) but leaves the verb implicit and the scope ambiguous — it is unclear whether it returns a boolean, a state list, or file-level detail. It is distinguishable from siblings site_freeze/site_unfreeze as a read-only counterpart, but only by inference rather than by explicit statement.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus site_freeze/site_unfreeze or any other sibling, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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