Get Site Integration Status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful clarification, especially for the 'laravel-maintenance' integration, without contradicting annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and a secondary sentence clarifying an enum value. No unnecessary words. Highly concise.

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 status check with 4 parameters (3 required), the description covers purpose and key clarification. No output schema is present, but expected return is boolean. Lacks mention of authentication or prerequisite (e.g., server existence), but annotations cover safety. Overall 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for the 'integration' parameter by clarifying that 'laravel-maintenance' answers the maintenance mode question. However, it does not elaborate on 'server', 'site', or 'organization' beyond schema descriptions.

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 checks whether a specific first-party Laravel integration is enabled, listing the possible integrations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_site (which retrieves general site info) and list_certificates, etc.

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 context but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. Sibling tools include many list operations, but no comparative guidance.

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