get_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'Get' but says nothing about authentication, permissions, error behavior for unknown UUIDs, or whether a missing site errors or returns null.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though almost too terse given the absence of any other structured guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a single-parameter lookup is inherently simple. However, with zero annotations and zero schema description coverage, the description leaves auth, error, and sibling-selection context unaddressed.

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 0% and the only parameter is titled 'Site Id' with no description, so the description's 'by UUID' is meaningful: it tells the agent the identifier format is a UUID rather than an integer or slug. That single detail is the extent of added parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one configured site') and scopes it to a single record, which implicitly contrasts with the list_sites sibling. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_sites or diagnose_sites, and no prerequisites or constraints. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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