List sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safe read-only nature. The description adds value by specifying the exact return fields and the fact that current_site_id is included, which is not merely repeating annotations. It also implies authentication requirements via 'authenticated user'. No contradictions.

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 three sentences, all information-dense. The first sentence states the core action and output fields, the second explains the current_site_id addition, the third provides a practical usage hint. No redundant or filler content.

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 simple zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns, the extra current_site_id, and a scenario for using site_url. It is complete given the tool's simplicity and available structured information.

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, making parameter semantics trivially covered by the schema (100% coverage). The description provides no parameter details, but since none exist, the baseline of 4 applies. The description does add meaning by explaining output fields, which helps the agent understand the result.

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 lists PushEngage sites accessible to the authenticated user, naming the returned fields (site_id, site_name, site_url, site_status). It also distinguishes itself from pushengage_auth_status by noting it returns current_site_id, and provides a specific use case for site_url in notifications.

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 references the alternative pushengage_auth_status, noting that calling this tool avoids needing a separate auth_status call when checking the active site. It also gives a concrete guideline for when to use site_url in notifications. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like get_site_details or select_site, so full exclusion guidance is missing.

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