wikijs_get_site_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Get' conveys a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what information is returned, whether it requires a live connection, or whether any data is cached. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is a modest but not severe gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though 'detailed information' is somewhat imprecise and could have been more concrete without adding bulk.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of what the agent will receive. Saying 'detailed information' without listing example fields, scope, or relationship to sibling status tools leaves the agent unable to judge whether this tool answers a specific request.

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 no parameters, so parameter semantics are predominantly schema-defined. The empty schema already documents everything needed; the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about the Wiki.js instance.' It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling repository/workspace/connection status tools because it targets the overall instance, though 'detailed information' remains vague about what is included.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of related status tools like wikijs_connection_status or wikijs_repository_status. An agent has to infer the appropriate context from the tool name alone.

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