Get a site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond that by disclosing permission requirements (shares require owner, filenames require editor or higher), clarifying that it does not return file contents, and noting that include is optional. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no waste. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by usage guidance and permission context. Every clause earns its place, and the structure guides the agent from 'what' to 'when' to 'how'.

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 read-only inspection tool with four parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, permission caveats, and explicitly what it does not return. There is no missing information that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly; even the include options and their consequences are explained.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'include' parameter ('shares require owner permission') and disambiguating 'slug' ('Not a local path'). It doesn't fully explain the share_token behavior, but the schema already describes it; overall it enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('a known remote artifact'), then enumerates exactly what it returns (title, kind, current version, file names). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like read and export by noting that file contents are handled elsewhere, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening other schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use before editing, to check what files exist, or to review version history and sharing status.' It also names alternatives for content retrieval ('File contents are returned by read (text) or export (original bytes)') and states permission prerequisites for shares and filenames, leaving nothing to inference.

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