list-sites

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description carries real additional burden and does: it declares that infrastructure sites (shell, login, service) are filtered by default, and it warns about the 'website' entry behaving differently on XM/XP versus SitecoreAI. Those are non-obvious behaviors an agent could otherwise get wrong.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the filtering behavior, then the environment-specific caveat. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'website' note is a fairly niche aside.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully described single parameter, the description covers return shape, default filtering, and an environment caveat; with readOnlyHint present it need not re-explain safety. The only material omission is disambiguation from sibling listing tools.

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 coverage is 100% for the single boolean, so the schema already documents includeSystemSites. The description's mention of it mostly restates the parameter's effect, adding only light context about Sitecore's own registrations. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Lists the content sites registered on this CM') and it goes further by enumerating exactly which fields come back (name, root path, start path, database, hostname, root item ID/template). It does not differentiate itself from siblings like authoring-list-sites or get-site-information, which read on the same surface, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one conditional usage note ('pass includeSystemSites to see everything'), which is helpful, but that is really parameter usage rather than tool-selection guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus the sibling list/get-site tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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