List sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral detail — that only non-retired devices are counted — but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource and its returned fields with no wasted words.

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, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and the key filtering nuance (non-retired devices). Pagination or ordering behavior is unaddressed but not critical here.

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, so per the baseline the schema carries no semantics to explain. The description usefully clarifies the shape of the returned data (code, city, device count) even though no input semantics are needed.

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 (list) and resource (sites) and specifies the returned fields: code, city, and count of non-retired devices. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like search_devices or open_tickets, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 implies usage (enumerate all sites) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With zero parameters the intent is fairly obvious, so this is adequate but not helpful guidance.

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