authoring-list-sites

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

readOnlyHint=true already telegraphs a safe read, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context: the returned field set and that system sites (shell, admin, login) are filtered out by default. This is more than the annotation conveys. It does not cover pagination or result size, keeping it short of a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the workflow rationale. It is dense but each sentence carries information (returned fields, why it matters, system-site filtering). Slightly long but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and the relationships they enable (root item ID scopes authoring-search; root path anchors item paths). It also documents the system-site filtering behavior. Nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on the single parameter, the schema already documents includeSystemSites and its default. The description restates the same hiding behavior ('System sites... are hidden unless includeSystemSites is set'), so it adds little beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Lists the sites configured on the Sitecore instance') and enumerates the returned fields (root path, start path, root item ID). It differentiates itself by naming the Authoring and Management API, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like list-sites or get-site-information. Clear purpose, missing sibling disambiguation.

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?

Gives strong positive guidance: 'Usually the first call when working on an instance you have not seen,' and explains exactly how the outputs feed authoring-search subtree scoping and item paths. It stops short of stating when not to use it or naming the sibling alternative, so it is not fully explicit about the alternative.

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