get_websites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all your websites', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical behaviors like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'page_size' parameters), search functionality, or whether it includes teams by default. The description misses key operational details needed for effective use.

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 at four words, front-loading the core action and resource without any wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still address input handling and context to be fully helpful.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description 'List all your websites' doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for this gap. It doesn't explain what 'include_teams', 'search', 'page', or 'page_size' do, leaving their semantics unclear. With 4 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant shortfall.

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 'List all your websites' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('websites'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_active' or 'get_pageviews', leaving ambiguity about what specific aspect of websites it retrieves. The description is functional but lacks specificity about scope or content.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_active' or 'get_metrics'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the name. This lack of comparative or contextual advice reduces its effectiveness for tool selection.

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