wp_list_sites

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

The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description explicitly states that it returns 'ids + count only,' setting clear expectations about the response. It does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but the read-only nature is strongly implied.

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, uses a clear structure with a main statement and filter details, and avoids unnecessary words. It is easy to scan and matches the schema parameter names.

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 description covers the output shape and filters, but it does not clarify whether multiple filters are combined with AND/OR, how results are ordered, or whether pagination is supported. It also omits behavior for empty results or invalid filter values, leaving some context gaps.

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?

All three parameters are described in the prose: account, environment, and query. The query substring behavior is clear, and environment values are given as prod|staging, though the 'account' value 'hostacct1-6' is somewhat ambiguous and lacks a concrete format.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('fleet sites'), and enumerates the fields involved. It also distinguishes the output as 'ids + count only,' making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 explains the available filters and their accepted values, which is useful for how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is only partially complete.

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