sitebay_get_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get detailed information'), which is clear, but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and return value at a high level. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details, especially since no annotations are provided to cover aspects like safety or performance.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining the 'fqdn' parameter as 'The fully qualified domain name of the site (e.g., "www.example.com")', which clarifies the input beyond the schema's basic string type. However, it doesn't cover all potential nuances, such as format constraints or examples for edge cases.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific WordPress site.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('WordPress site'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sitebay_list_sites' (which likely lists multiple sites), leaving room for improvement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools such as 'sitebay_list_sites' for listing multiple sites or 'sitebay_update_site' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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