get-sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals the sort order, but omits other important behaviors such as pagination, authentication requirements, or whether the list includes all sites. The core behavior of returning a list is already implied by the tool name.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It conveys the essential information (return type and sort order) efficiently.

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 list tool, it provides the return type and sort order but lacks crucial context: it doesn't clarify the scope ('all sites'), doesn't explain the optional 'includes' parameter, and with no output schema, the description should offer more detail about what a 'site object' contains.

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 schema has 100% coverage for its one parameter, but the parameter description ('includes parameter') is purely tautological. The tool description doesn't explain what 'includes' does with the enum values. Baseline 3 applies due to schema coverage, but no added value from the description.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('list of site objects'), and adds a meaningful sorting detail ('sorted by date added ascending'). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get-site-by-id' by using plural 'sites'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it returns all sites, nor does it reference sibling tools like get-site-by-id for single-site retrieval. The reader is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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