list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the returned field set plus the notable negative constraint 'No passwords' — an agent knows it cannot retrieve credentials here. It does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effects or behavior when no sites are configured, but 'List' strongly conveys the safe-read profile.

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?

Two short sentences, scope front-loaded, no filler. Every clause adds information: the resource, the returned fields, and the security caveat.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and the zero-parameter schema needs no further explanation. Only minor gaps remain: whether the list is filtered/paginated and what happens when no sites exist.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field list that follows the colon describes the return payload rather than inputs, which is the right allocation of words here.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus a specific resource (configured sites), and it enumerates the fields returned (name, host, remote root, default local folder). It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (history, deploy, pull, restore, etc.), none of which enumerate configured sites.

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 purpose implies when to use it — inventory/discovery of configured sites before deploying or pulling — but the description never states that, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb.

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