Select Site

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the tool verifies site reachability and retrieves the site's title, which are not implied by annotations alone. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage rule in two concise sentences, with no wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information about functionality and context.

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 the tool's complexity (simple parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, usage context, and added behaviors like validation and title retrieval. However, it lacks details on error handling or what happens if validation fails, leaving a minor gap.

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%, with the parameter 'site' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('validate and select') and resource ('Discourse site'), explicitly distinguishing it from siblings by noting it must be called before other tools when multiple sites are configured. It goes beyond a tautology by explaining the validation and retrieval functions.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Must be called before using other tools when multiple sites are configured'), which directly addresses its role relative to sibling tools. It clearly defines the prerequisite context without being misleading.

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