uisp_list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies that 'sites' includes endpoints and clients and that UCRM linkage is optional, but it does not mention pagination, default return behavior, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'List'.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action and scope in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by explaining how returned IDs integrate with related tools, with no wasted words.

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 read-style list operation with fully documented parameters, the description covers the core semantics and downstream usage well. The lack of an output schema and annotations means return shape and default pagination behavior are not addressed, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simple nature.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the six parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond mentioning that site IDs chain into other tools, which is consistent with the baseline score of 3.

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 operation ('List sites') and defines the resource scope as network locations including sites, endpoints, and clients, with optional UCRM linkage. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from uisp_search_sites, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 chaining sentence implies this tool is used to obtain site IDs for downstream tools like uisp_get_site and uisp_list_devices. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this list endpoint versus alternatives such as uisp_search_sites, leaving the usage context only implied.

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