site_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read-only retrieval and adds meaningful context about the currently selected site being the basis for all downstream queries. It does not cover edge cases such as empty lists or authentication failures, but for a simple zero-parameter lookup this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the second sentence adds genuinely useful context about why the returned current site matters. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter site-list lookup, the description is almost complete: it names what is returned (selectable sites plus current selection) and explains the significance of the current site. It does not detail the exact output structure, but without an output schema this is a minor gap rather than a functional blocker.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter-related claims.

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 states precisely what the tool does: it retrieves both the list of selectable sites and the currently selected site. The verb '조회한다' is specific, and the scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like site_select, which handles selection rather than listing.

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 gives clear context: it should be used when an agent needs to know the available sites or the current site context. The statement that device, data, and report queries all operate on the current site implies when this tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like site_select or state when not to use it.

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