Get Site

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

The annotation set already declares readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the schema—no mention of output shape, error behavior, or scoping—but it is consistent with the annotations and not misleading.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the core operation and identifier requirement are communicated immediately.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, idempotent lookup, the description is complete enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. No pagination, output schema, or complex options exist, so no additional context is necessary.

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 100%, and the single site_id parameter is already described as 'The site ID to retrieve.' The description only restates 'by its ID,' adding no new semantic value, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific Kinsta site'), making the operation unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from kinsta_sites_list by requiring a site ID, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 phrase 'by its ID' clearly signals this is the single-site lookup to use when a known site_id is available, as opposed to listing sites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear enough for a competent agent.

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