sigsci_get_whitelist

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('get'), which is non-destructive. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authorization requirements, or return format. With no annotations, the description provides minimal behavioral insight.

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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It wastes no words, though could benefit from a brief elaboration on what a whitelist is.

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 simple input schema (2 params) and no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list or single whitelist). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters (corpName, siteName) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 'Get whitelist for a site' clearly states the action (get) and resource (whitelist), with site as the scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigsci_get_blacklist, but does not explicitly differentiate from other similar get tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sigsci_get_blacklist or sigsci_list_sites. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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