Paramètres du site

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

The description aligns with annotations: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the GET endpoint confirms a non-mutating operation. It adds the endpoint path but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the site does not exist. With annotations already covering the safety profile, the description meets the minimum expected value.

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 compact and front-loads the resource name before listing the returned settings and the endpoint. The field list is useful for an agent to know what this tool returns, and there is no redundant prose or filler, though it could be slightly improved with an explicit active verb.

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 one-parameter, read-only GET tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the setting fields returned and provides the endpoint. It does not describe possible error conditions or response formatting, but given the low complexity and strong annotations, the description is largely complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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%, and the schema already defines siteId as an encoded hashid. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter beyond embedding it in the GET path, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource as site settings and enumerates the specific setting categories it covers (description, sector, positioning, objective, type, internal links, min length, indexing tests, CMS). The trailing GET endpoint makes the retrieval intent explicit, and it is easily distinguished from the sibling updateSiteSettings, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as updateSiteSettings, getSite, or getSiteStats. The agent must infer from the GET verb and field list that this is the read-only settings lookup, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided.

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