list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a query operation ('查询'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, reversible, or has side effects. It mentions the scope ('当前用户下' - under the current user) but doesn't describe authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond parameters), error conditions, or what '配置等信息' (configuration, etc.) entails. For a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that front-loads the core purpose ('查询当前用户下的站点列表') and adds clarifying details ('包括站点的名称、状态、配置等信息'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating scope from output details, but it remains highly concise.

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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to provide behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, error handling, authentication), usage guidelines relative to siblings, or details on return values. For a list/query tool with many filtering options, more guidance on output structure and tool selection would be beneficial to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, enums, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying filtering capabilities through '包括站点的名称、状态、配置等信息' (including site name, status, configuration, etc.), which loosely maps to some parameters like 'siteName', 'status', and 'tagFilter'. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions, required combinations, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: '查询当前用户下的站点列表' (query the list of sites under the current user) and specifies what information is included: '站点的名称、状态、配置等信息' (site name, status, configuration, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('查询' - query) and resource ('站点列表' - site list), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site_active_list' or 'site_route_list', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'site_active_list' (which might list active sites) or 'site_route_list' (which might list site routes), nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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