get_magic_transit_site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, which is the primary behavior an agent needs to know, but the description adds no further context such as error behavior, permission requirements, or response shape. For a simple read this is adequate but minimal.

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?

A single nine-word sentence with zero filler; every word — 'details', 'specific', 'Magic WAN site' — earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it instantly scannable.

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 tool with only two required parameters, both fully documented in the schema, and a self-evident return value implied by 'details', the short description provides what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. No output schema exists, but the return is obvious from the verb and resource. Minor gaps like not-found error behavior are acceptable for such a simple fetch 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both account_id ('The account ID') and site_id ('The site ID') are described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description text adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No compensation for gaps is needed.

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 ('Get'), resource ('details'), and scope ('a specific Magic WAN site'), which clearly conveys single-site retrieval as opposed to the list_magic_transit_sites sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it should be chosen over, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 word 'specific' implies the tool is for retrieving one site by ID rather than enumerating sites via list_magic_transit_sites, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of alternatives or the conditions that would route an agent to a different tool, leaving usage to convention.

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