mcp_list_sidebars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but never confirms that nothing is mutated, and says nothing about scope (global vs per-site), ordering, or whether the result includes inactive/unregistered sidebars.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though it is arguably too terse to be fully informative.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves gaps around return contents and relation to mcp_get_sidebar_widgets, which an agent would need to chain calls correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'site' parameter is documented in the schema ("Site id (see list_sites)"), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (registered sidebars), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as mcp_get_sidebar_widgets or mcp_list_widget_types, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related tool (mcp_get_sidebar_widgets) that an agent would likely need next. The agent must 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.