uisp_list_site_clients

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only 'list' operation and adds the parent-site scoping detail. It does not mention pagination, recursion through child levels, auth requirements, or response shape, but those are less critical for a simple list tool.

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?

One clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core scoping information is immediately visible.

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 tool with one required parameter and no nested objects, the description plus schema is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main gaps are the lack of explicit alternative routing and behavioral caveats, but 'list all client sites' adequately implies the return value even without an output schema.

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 schema already covers the only parameter at 100% with 'Parent site ID (from uisp_list_sites).' The description restates the parent-site relationship but adds no format, source, or additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'List all client sites belonging to a given (parent) site,' and clearly scopes the operation to a parent-child relationship. This distinguishes it from siblings like uisp_list_sites (all sites) and uisp_get_site (single site).

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 use case is implied: use this when you have a parent site ID and need its client sites. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to alternatives such as uisp_list_sites for listing top-level sites, so the guidance is minimal.

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