List TacticalRMM Sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the source endpoint and a redundant 'read-only' statement, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination, response format, or relationship to clients. It is consistent with annotations but provides minimal extra context.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core action stated first. The second sentence repeats the annotation hint 'read-only', which is somewhat redundant, but overall the description is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 simple list tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It names the endpoint but does not explain what a 'site' is, how it relates to clients, or what the response contains. Given the rich annotations and schema, this is a bare minimum but not fully complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions for limit, offset, and response_format. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 tool lists TacticalRMM sites, with the specific action 'List' and resource 'TacticalRMM sites'. It also provides the source endpoint '/clients/sites/', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tacticalrmm_list_clients' by resource type.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'tacticalrmm_list_clients' or other list tools. The description merely states what it does and that it is read-only, but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases.

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