get_site_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation for validation, but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or whether the operation is safe (non-destructive). For a simple read tool, this is acceptable but lacks additional behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word is necessary, no redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context: what it does, why, and the input. It does not describe the return structure, but the purpose implicitly covers expected output (metadata). Minor gap but not critical.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter described as 'site_id, site_label o base_url del sitio'. The description merely restates the endpoint and purpose, not the parameter details. Baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Consulta /site-info del bridge') and its purpose ('validar conexión y metadatos del sitio'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sites (listing all sites) or get_options (getting options) by specifying the exact endpoint and validation role.

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 when to use the tool (to validate connection and get site metadata). It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the purpose is sufficiently specific.

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