list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the output includes site IDs and that it lists all sites, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the exact response structure, pagination, or any potential side effects. For a simple list tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action, scope, and return value. Every word adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a straightforward zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose and what is returned. However, it lacks explicit mention of whether the hierarchy is nested or flat, and there is no output schema to clarify the response format. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 tool has no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about the output (site IDs) but no parameter-specific details are needed. The schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 states a specific action ('List all sites') with a clear scope ('with org/account hierarchy') and differentiates from the sibling tool 'list_sites_flat' by implying hierarchy vs flat view. It also mentions the return value ('site IDs needed by other tools'), which clarifies its purpose.

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 implicitly indicates when to use the tool: when you need site IDs for other tools. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with 'list_sites_flat' is evident from the sibling list. The guidance is clear enough for a simple listing operation.

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