Список сайтов

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond this by detailing the return structure (array of hosts, including host_id format, verified, main_mirror) and the significance of host_id, which is valuable 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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes all necessary details (return fields and usage guidance) without any redundancy. It is a model of concise, well-structured documentation.

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 list endpoint with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it mentions the response format (array of hosts), lists all key fields, and gives a concrete example of host_id. It doesn't discuss pagination or empty-list behavior, but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0 parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it focuses on output, which is appropriate.

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 verb ('returns a list of user's sites') and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by positioning it as the starting point for Webmaster API work ('with this tool you should start any work'). It also enumerates key fields, so purpose is 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 explicitly says to start any Webmaster work with this tool and that the returned host_id is needed by all other tools, providing a clear when-to-use cue. However, it doesn't mention when not to use or name alternatives (e.g., if you already have host_id), so it falls short of a 5.

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