Get a Warpweb site

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It details the return fields (status, generation_phase, generation_message, deployment_url), enumerates possible status values, explains the polling stop conditions, and documents the 404 behavior for missing or unowned sites. This is rich, honest context beyond mere 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically into usage, return fields, polling pattern, status values, and error behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information; nothing is filler or repetitive. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and under what conditions. It accounts for the single parameter, lists all relevant statuses, provides a practical polling algorithm, and covers the not-found case. It is complete for a simple site lookup/polling tool.

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 already provides a clear description for siteId ('Site UUID returned by create_site'), giving a baseline of 3. The tool description adds value by explaining that the id refers to a site record, implying the 'by id' lookup, and clarifying that a 404 occurs if the id is not owned by the account. This enriches parameter meaning 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 clearly states the tool fetches the current record for one site by id, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and resource 'site record'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sites (which lists multiple) and create_site (which creates), by focusing on a single site lookup with a clear scope.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: to poll build status after create_site or create_revision. It provides a concrete polling pattern with intervals and stopping criteria, and mentions the 404 case for non-existent/unowned sites, offering clear context for usage.

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