Get Published Sites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what the output format is. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, and there's no wasted verbiage 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving published sites), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'published sites' entails (e.g., list of URLs, site objects), potential errors, or behavioral details like permissions needed. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'contentSiteId' documented as 'Content site ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a 'content site' is or how to obtain its ID. Since the schema already covers the parameter adequately, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'published sites for a content site', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_content_site' or 'get_staging_site', which might retrieve different site types, leaving some ambiguity about its unique scope.

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, such as 'get_content_sites' (which might list all sites) or 'get_staging_site' (which might retrieve unpublished versions). It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, offering minimal usage direction.

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