get_site_custom_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two modes, the token-saving rationale, and the include_guide behavior. It does not detail response format or error handling, but for a straightforward read-only tool this is adequate and adds context beyond a simple 'get' statement.

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 concise and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose followed by bullet-pointed mode details. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes the two modes and include_guide flag easy to parse. No fluff or repetition.

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 read tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: default return all fields, filtered return specific fields, and include_guide behavior. It explains what the tool returns and how to invoke it, making it self-contained and complete for the given complexity.

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% for both parameters, with detailed schema descriptions already explaining fields (enum values, omit for all) and include_guide (first-call guide). The description adds minimal extra semantics, such as 'saves tokens', but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Get custom code of the site (CSS/JS)' with a specific verb and resource. It also explains two modes (default all fields vs. field filter), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_site_custom_code, and making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use each mode: default returns all 4 fields, field filter saves tokens when only CSS or JS is needed, and include_guide=true is recommended on the first call. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to other getters like get_global_source_element or get_page_source.

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