get_site_info

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by explaining the return structure. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any prerequisites (e.g., robot existence), auth needs, or rate limits. The behavioral context is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise and structured with separate sections for purpose, args, and returns. The inclusion of an external URL is not strictly necessary but does not harm conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics: what it does, what it takes, and what it returns. It lacks mention of error conditions or permissions, but is largely complete for its complexity.

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%, and the description provides the meaning of robot_id ('The ID of the target robot'), which adds value beyond the schema's empty description. While minimal, it is sufficient for a simple string parameter.

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 states the verb 'Gets' and resource 'site information for a specific robot', and elaborates on the return content (buildings, floors, maps). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_robot_maps or get_robot_status_smart.

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 needing site info for a specific robot, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. No alternatives are mentioned.

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