Get Rybbit site details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only describes what the tool returns (configuration and details) but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, rate limits, error behavior, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then provides examples. There is no unnecessary information, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return fields (name, domain, tracking feature flags) and parameter source. However, it lacks information on error handling, authentication requirements, or whether the tool is destructive. Given the low complexity, it is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 single parameter 'site' is described in the schema as 'The Rybbit site ID (numeric ID from your Rybbit dashboard or the rybbit_list_sites tool).' The description adds value by providing context on where to obtain the ID, going beyond the schema's type information. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description enhances understanding.

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 'Get configuration and details for a single site by ID' with specific examples of returned fields (name, domain, tracking feature flags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_list_sites (for listing) and other get tools for different resources.

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 indicates usage 'by ID', implying it should be used when the site ID is known. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context signal of sibling tools (e.g., rybbit_list_sites) provides implicit differentiation. A score of 4 reflects clear usage context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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