get_site_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility. It accurately discloses the tool's behavior (confirms auth, reports active theme, plugins, etc.) and implicitly indicates a read-only operation through the name 'get_site_context'. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur or mention potential error conditions.

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, front-loaded sentence of 20 words. Every part contributes meaning: the verb phrase, the list of returned items. No filler or 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, no annotations), the description provides sufficient detail about what the tool returns. The list of outputs (auth, theme, plugins, etc.) gives an agent a clear picture of the tool's utility.

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% with the single 'site' parameter already described in the schema. The description adds no new information beyond the schema's example ('e.g. 'acme''), so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 verb ('bring up to speed') and the resource ('a site'), listing specific outputs (auth confirmation, theme, plugins, page builder, recent pages). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_sites and get_page by focusing on comprehensive site context rather than page-level or list-level operations.

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 usage for obtaining site-level context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'use when you need an overview of a site's configuration, not for listing sites or editing pages'). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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