Get the project website

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds significant behavioral context: returns defaults if not built, and explains the unmanaged block scenario. This goes beyond the annotation, though it omits error handling or auth details.

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 front-loaded with the main action but includes a ticket reference (FBMCPB-64) that is not useful for an agent. The second sentence on edge cases is necessary but could be more concise.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not fully describe the return structure. It lists some fields but not the shape or defaults. Also, the parameter is not explained, and the tool's behavior under error conditions is omitted. Given the tool's simplicity, it remains somewhat incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must explain the 'project' parameter. It mentions 'the resolved site directory (websiteLocation, else <project>/site/)' but does not explicitly define the parameter's meaning or format. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand what value to provide.

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 it reads the project's splash/website config and lists the fields it retrieves. It distinguishes itself from write tools like set_site, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It only states what it does, without prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when-not-to-use.

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