List connected AutoSEO sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'CAPABILITY: read — side-effect-free' and specifies that the output includes connection health, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences with clear front-loading of purpose and usage. The additional capability note is brief and does not waste space. Every sentence contributes value.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return fields, scope (active org), and use cases. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it focuses on return contents, which 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 tool lists connected AutoSEO sites/targets for the active org, with specific fields (id, kind, name, capabilities, connection health). It distinguishes from sibling tools like autoseo_connect_site and autoseo_verify_site by the action 'list' and the resource 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?

Explicitly says when to use it: to find a siteId for autoseo_configure, autoseo_propose_topics, or autoseo_generate_post, or to check a site's status before troubleshooting a failed publish. This provides clear context and implies alternatives by naming downstream tools.

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