get_site_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool requires no parameters and always returns cached data, which hints at non-destructive, read-only behavior. The mention of 'pre-warmed cache' is a useful behavioral detail that helps the agent understand performance and freshness characteristics.

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 two sentences: the first provides a clear purpose and list of returned data, the second adds operational constraints. This is concise and front-loaded. Minor point: the list of returned items could be slightly trimmed without loss, but it's already efficient.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what data is returned, how it behaves (cached), and what constraints exist (no parameters). No additional information is needed for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters and the description confirms this with 'No parameters required'. Schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no undocumented parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the absence of parameters is intentional and that the tool always returns cached data, which is beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource ('information about the connected LMS instance'). It lists concrete data returned: site name, version, release, authenticated user, available API functions, and total course count. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_courses or get_course which operate on different resources.

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 explicitly states that no parameters are required and that it always returns cached data. It implies a straightforward use case: calling this tool when you need instance-level metadata. While it doesn't name alternative tools for other contexts, the zero-parameter constraint and specific returned data make the usage context unambiguous.

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