rybbit_get_site

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 only states a read operation ('Get') but does not mention any potential side effects, required permissions, return format, or edge cases. It is functionally transparent for a simple read but lacks valuable 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 directly states the tool's function without any redundant or extraneous words. It is perfectly sized for the information it conveys.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but not complete. It does not specify what details and configuration include, nor does it differentiate from similar tools like rybbit_get_site_summary or rybbit_get_overview. More context would help an agent decide when to use 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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'siteId' with its description 'Site ID or identifier'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond implying site identity, so the 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 'Get site details and configuration' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (site details and configuration), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch other types of data (e.g., overview, visitors, retention). It is specific enough to identify the tool's primary purpose, though 'details and configuration' is somewhat generic.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling get_* tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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