get_site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds context by detailing the return information (URL, status, config) and the partition behavior. This is sufficient and adds value beyond annotations.

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?

Two efficient sentences. First sentence states purpose and output. Second provides usage guidance and partition detail. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical info.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (URL, status, configuration). It covers partition nuance and refers to sibling tools. Complete for a simple read-only 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the partition default behavior and referencing that siteId comes from list_sites or create_site, which aids in parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('Get full details'), the resource ('a specific Hostsmith site by ID'), and lists the specific outputs (public URL, deployment status, configuration). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying when to use it (after list_sites or deploy 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: after `list_sites` to inspect a single site, or after `deploy_files`/`deploy_finalize` to confirm the site is live and get the URL. Also explains partition default behavior and when to override, referencing sibling tool output.

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