list_websites

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for exposing behavioral traits. It only states the basic action and says nothing about pagination, filtering, authentication, side effects, or return behavior. The description is purely declarative and lacks any behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It wastes no words and is adequately front-loaded. However, it is extremely terse and omits useful detail, though that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description only says 'get a list of monitored websites,' which is insufficient to understand pagination, filtering, or the response format. It provides a bare minimum of context and is inadequate for a tool with this parameter 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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention any of the six parameters. It fails to explain how 'name', 'page', 'slug', 'search', 'page_size', or 'updated_at' influence the returned list, leaving the agent without semantic understanding of the parameters.

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 gets a list of monitored websites, using a specific verb and resource. It identifies the scope ('monitored') and distinguishes it from other list tools by its target resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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. There is no mention of criteria for selecting this over other list tools, no exclusions, and no context about typical use cases.

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