get_site_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the listed fields indicate what will be returned, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, whether special permissions are required, or how failures surface. This is adequate for a simple getter but leaves the behavioral contract implicit.

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?

One tightly scoped sentence front-loads the operation and resource, then uses a colon to enumerate the returned settings efficiently. Every phrase contributes value; there is no repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter getter with no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the return value will contain. It is less complete in that it does not flag the relationship to get_workspace_info or any response-shape caveats, but nothing about invocation is left unclear.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema fully documents that with empty properties. The description therefore has no parameter meanings to add; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is solid.

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 specifies the resource ('site configuration') and enumerates its contents: languages, site name, enabled features, and cart/commerce settings. It is unambiguous about the operation (Get), but it never mentions sibling get_workspace_info, so differentiation from that overlap is left to the name and item list rather than explicit routing.

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 guidance about when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_workspace_info, nor any statement about prerequisites or context. The only implied usage is 'when you need site configuration,' which is essentially a restatement of the purpose.

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