get_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' and 'get' imply a read-only operation, which is helpful. The description also reveals the payload behavior (default vs. full stored JSON). It does not mention error handling, prerequisites, or explicit side-effect absence, but the read-only implication is fairly strong.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the optional payload enhancement. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure supports quick scanning by an agent.

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 this is a simple read tool with an output schema and only two parameters, the description covers the essential behavior and the key parameter option. A minor gap is the relationship to render_site (whether a site must be rendered first), which could confuse an agent, but overall the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clearly explains include_payload ('get the full stored JSON back'). The required slug parameter is not described, though its meaning is reasonably inferable from the tool name and context. The description adds value for one parameter but leaves the other undocumented.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a rendered site' and lists its parts (sections, decks, learning path). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_sites (listing) and render_site (rendering) without needing to open schemas. It is immediately obvious what get_site does.

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 inspecting an existing rendered site and offers a concrete use case for include_payload ('useful when you want to reason about existing content before patching it'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, leaving some selection reasoning to the agent.

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