rb209_field_site_classes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the HTTP method and resource but gives no detail about response shape, side effects, error behavior, required permissions, or what a 'site class' means. The GET verb implies read-only behavior, but the description does not explicitly confirm it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately short for a simple parameterized GET endpoint, though the phrase 'Site class list' is terse and could be slightly more descriptive without harming 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the response contains and any operational context. It only says 'Site class list', leaving the agent without information about the return format or how site classes relate to countries. For a one-parameter lookup this is borderline but below minimum viability because it lacks any behavioral detail.

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 100%, with the countryId parameter described as 'The Country id'. The tool description adds only the path-template context that countryId is substituted into the URL, which is marginal. The schema already documents the parameter adequately, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies a specific HTTP verb (GET) and resource (Site classes filtered by countryId), making it clear this is a list retrieval operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like rb209_field_site_class or rb209_field_site_class_item, but the word 'list' and the path structure provide reasonable clarity.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rb209_field_site_class or rb209_field_countries. The description only states what the endpoint is, not the scenarios in which an agent should prefer it.

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