get-default-site

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden, yet it adds nothing beyond that: no return shape, no behavior when no default site exists, no mention of how the includes parameter alters the response. It essentially restates the title.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. Nothing is buried and nothing extraneous is included; it is short precisely because the annotations and schema carry the rest.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, this is close to adequate, but it says nothing about what a site object is or how the includes values change the result, leaving the agent to guess at the enum's effect.

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 the baseline is 3, but the schema's own description for includes is a placeholder ("includes parameter") and the tool description does not explain that adding locales or custom_attributes expands the returned payload. No meaning is added beyond the structured field.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the default site for a Concrete installation. That is clearly distinct from listing all sites, though the description never names the siblings get-sites or get-site-by-id to reinforce the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and phrasing; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get-sites or get-site-by-id, and no prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., what happens when no default site is configured). An agent can infer the use case, but nothing is spelled out.

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