get_site_custom_code

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds behavioral detail beyond that: the default returns ALL 4 fields in full, filtering reduces payload, and the guide is a first-call-only artifact. It omits anything about response size limits or ordering, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a compact two-mode breakdown and a single advisory line. Efficient and scannable, with only mild redundancy between the bullet text and the parameter schema descriptions.

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 two-parameter, zero-required, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the mode selection and the optional guide flag adequately. An agent can call it correctly on the first try; only the shape of the returned code payload is left unspecified.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real context the schema lacks: why to filter (token savings) and the 'only needed on first call' nuance for include_guide. It stops short of naming the field values, which the schema's enum already covers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get custom code of the site (CSS/JS)') and breaks the tool into two named modes, so an agent immediately understands what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like get_page_source or update_site_custom_code, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for each mode: omit the filter for full content, pass fields to save tokens, and set include_guide=true on the first call. No exclusion criterion against alternative retrieval tools is given, but the conditional usage is clear.

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