site_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds a list of fields (title, code, data, languages) but no deeper behavioral traits like caching or rate limits. Supplementary but not transformative.

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?

Extremely concise yet informative—two sentences front-load purpose and read-only nature. No wasted words.

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?

Tool is simple with rich annotations, but missing parameter guidance. Description covers output (fields) but not input semantics. Adequate but not complete for a zero-parameter-doc schema.

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 has 1 parameter 'site' with 0% description coverage. Description does not clarify what value 'site' expects (e.g., ID, slug). This omission forces the agent to infer, reducing usefulness.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'site singleton', and lists key fields. It distinguishes from sibling write tools by explicitly saying 'Read-only'.

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 implies use for retrieval with 'Get the site singleton' and 'Read-only'. No explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings (e.g., site_update) makes usage clear.

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