list_fleet_sites

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

With no annotations, the description handles behavioral disclosure. It states it returns distinct sites from registered printers and requires a license, but doesn't mention data freshness, pagination, or side effects. Given it's a simple read-only list, 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence provides essential information: action, return details, and usage/license. No unnecessary words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and a usage scenario. Minor missing detail: whether results are sorted or paginated, but for a simple list this is acceptable.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline 4 applies. The description adds value by specifying the output includes 'printer counts' and 'distinct sites', which is not present in the schema (no output schema).

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 all fleet sites with printer counts, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fleet_status_by_site by focusing on site listing with counts, and explicitly mentions usefulness for multi-site dashboards.

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 clear context, noting the tool is for multi-site dashboards and requires an Enterprise license. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, though the sibling tools suggest more detailed status queries exist.

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