Get site and system information

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

The readOnlyHint annotation conveys safety, but the description adds meaningful behavior: it states the tool exposes which fields are returned and deliberately omits host filesystem and database host details. This goes beyond annotation-only coverage, though it stops short of describing error behavior or exact response format.

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, each earning its place: return content, diagnostic usage, and deliberate exclusions. The most actionable information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool backed by a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It explains what the call returns, what it proves, and what sensitive fields are intentionally absent.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema describes 100% of the parameter space. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description is not required to explain parameter behavior, and it appropriately focuses on return value and usage.

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 explicitly lists what the tool returns: version, database, host summary, site title/description, and totals. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the diagnostic framing distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 situational guidance: 'The first call to make when something is not behaving — it proves the URL and the API key work at all.' This tells an agent exactly when to invoke this tool, even without naming alternatives.

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