get_site_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but it does not clarify which site is referenced (e.g., current active site), whether any settings are returned in a specific format, or if there are any limitations. This lack of detail is a significant gap given the presence of site-switching tools.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource. The parenthetical list of settings is concise and avoids unnecessary filler. It earns its place by providing examples of what constitutes 'full site information.'

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?

The description lists several included categories (name, domain, settings with examples), which gives a reasonable overview. However, it ends with 'etc.', introducing ambiguity about the exact scope of the return value. Since no output schema is provided, the description should more precisely define what 'full site information' includes.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is 100%. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description does not need to add parameter details since there are none, and it correctly focuses on the return value.

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 function: 'Get full site information' followed by a list of included fields (name, domain, settings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are more specialized, such as get_site_custom_code, by emphasizing a comprehensive scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither mentions situations that warrant this tool nor contrasts it with related getters like get_site_custom_code or list_my_sites. Usage has to be inferred from the tool name and description.

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