List my sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the scoping rule (only sites owned by the API key), the fact that the main site is marked, and the shape of the returned dataset including the folder field. It stops short of noting pagination or result-size behavior for accounts with many sites.

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?

Three short sentences: what it returns first, then how to use the result, then the alternative. Every sentence carries distinct information and the most actionable guidance (the folder path) is front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Combined with the read-only annotations and the fully documented single parameter, nothing material is missing for a simple list tool.

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 is a single optional parameter, response_format, and schema coverage is 100% with an enum and a default already documented in the schema. The description says nothing about it, so it neither adds nor contradicts meaning — the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 and resource ("List every site on the Nekoweb account that owns the API key") and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: domain, title, views, followers, dates, and file folder. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling nekoweb_get_site_info by name, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit sequencing instruction ("Call this first to learn the folder to use in file paths") with a concrete example path, and names the alternative for the single-site case ("Use nekoweb_get_site_info for a single site"). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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