List sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the operation reads the account's sites and is scoped to the account, implying a read-only list. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential errors, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and why someone would use it. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and connects it to the sibling tools. It could be slightly more specific about output format, but the use case is well expressed, making this adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level information, but with zero parameters a baseline of 4 is appropriate, and the description still clarifies what the tool returns in terms of publishing sites.

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 verb 'lists' and the resource 'sites on this account', distinguishing it from the sibling publishing tools by framing it as a prerequisite for publishing. It gives a concrete purpose rather than just repeating the name.

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 gives clear usage context through the phrase 'so a publish can go to one of them', telling the agent when to use it (before a publish operation). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough that the agent can infer it is not a publishing tool.

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