rybbit_get_private_link_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is admin-gated and requires the sites:write scope, which is critical context for authorization. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, and no contradictions exist.

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 states the action, the second states requirements. No fluff, well-structured, and front-loaded with the key verb.

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 is simple with one parameter, and the schema covers it fully. However, there is no output schema, so the description should ideally describe what the returned configuration contains; it only mentions 'configuration' generically, leaving a minor gap for an agent expecting return details.

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 single required parameter siteId is fully documented in the schema with description 'Site ID or identifier,' achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond connecting the parameter to the site context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Get the private-link sharing configuration for a site,' a specific verb-resource pair. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which mention private-link config.

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 use when retrieving a site's private-link sharing configuration, which is unique among siblings. It also provides explicit permission requirements (org admin/owner, sites:write scope), helping an agent assess feasibility. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, though none exist.

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