get_site_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that including functions can return a large list (though the schema already says this) and positions the call as a bootstrap verification step. However, it does not explicitly state that it's a read-only safe operation or describe the response structure beyond 'site + user + token info', leaving some behavioral expectations unspecified.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a specific, useful tip. No filler or repetition of schema content. It earns its place efficiently.

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 diagnostic tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose and a key use case. It could be more complete by summarizing what 'site + user + token info' includes or warning about the large response size (though the schema does warn), but it's largely sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented. The description reinforces the use of include_functions=true in a bootstrap context, adding a practical semantics beyond the schema's technical description. However, it does not add new information about functions_filter. Thus it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 retrieves site, user, and token info, and names the underlying web service function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing token and function list verification, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

It provides a concrete usage scenario: 'Use include_functions=true at bootstrap to verify which plugin WS functions are exposed to the token.' This implies when the tool is useful but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is clear context, just no exclusions.

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