printix_list_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 does mention that the tool is 'paged', which is a behavioral detail, and 'for the tenant' clarifies scope. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (though 'List' implies read-only), authentication requirements, error behavior, or pagination defaults. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implicit read-only nature and paging, so it meets the baseline but lacks depth.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds clarifying scope and pagination. Every element ('List', 'sites', 'physical locations', 'for the tenant', 'paged') contributes value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose, scope, and paging. It does not specify the return format or field details, but for a list operation this is often acceptable given the agent can infer from the tool name and context. Minor gaps like default page size or max page size are not critical for calling the tool correctly. The description is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both 'page' and 'pageSize' have descriptions ('Zero-based page number.' and 'Results per page.'). The description's mention of 'paged' adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing schema details.

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 states a clear verb 'List', a specific resource 'Printix sites', and clarifies that sites mean 'physical locations'. It also specifies the scope 'for the tenant' and notes pagination. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like printix_get_site (singular) and other list tools (users, groups, printers, workstations) without needing to open schemas.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that printix_get_site should be used for a single site, nor does it indicate any exclusions or conditions. The only hint is the plural 'sites' in the name, which is implicit. No explicit when-to-use guidance is given.

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