list_all_sites_aggregated

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

The description indicates a read operation with no side effects. While no annotations exist, the description is sufficient for a simple list tool. The mention of 'aggregated stats' gives useful context beyond 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 purpose is front-loaded and the description is short. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' lines are unnecessary for a tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, adding minor clutter.

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?

While the output schema exists, the description does not explain what 'aggregated stats' means or any limitations. The misleading parameter documentation also reduces completeness. Adequate but with gaps.

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 description includes 'Args: settings: Application settings' but the input schema has no parameters. This is a clear contradiction that misleads the agent, despite 100% schema coverage and zero parameters.

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 it lists all sites with aggregated stats, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('all sites'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_sites which likely lacks aggregated stats.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sites or get_site_details. The description implies it's for an overview with aggregated stats, but does not provide when-not-to-use or direct alternatives.

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