get-site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds a useful detail about accepted identifier forms, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error behavior, result shape, or relationship to openWorldHint.

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, tightly scoped sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then clarifies the input format. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what the tool does and how the identifier is expressed. The lack of an output schema is acceptable here, though a brief note about the returned site object could have made it fully self-contained.

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?

The schema only describes siteId as 'Value for siteId', which is unhelpful. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that siteId can be either a plain id or a hostname:/sites/path form, going beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 identifies the operation as retrieving a SharePoint site by identifier, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like search-sites or get-site-list, but the focused 'by id' wording makes the core purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is appropriate when the caller already has a site id or a hostname:/sites/path reference. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over search-sites or other related site tools, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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