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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the returned fields and implying it returns file metadata, not contents. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences that lead with the core action and then the useful result fields. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 straightforward read-only listing tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention pagination explicitly, but the limit and cursor parameters in the schema partially compensate.

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 already describes site_id, cursor, and prefix, and limit has default/min/max constraints (75% coverage). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it neither elevates nor harms parameter 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List files on a site') and enumerates the returned metadata (path, size, content type, live URL). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_site_file (single file content) and list_sites.

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 tells what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. It does not mention read_site_file for content retrieval or list_sites for site-level operations, leaving selection to inference.

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