list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful trait beyond the schema: results are returned 'without exposing credentials', which signals a safe, redacted read. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, pagination, or result limits, so the safety profile is only partially covered.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the credential-safety note are both delivered immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape and field details need not be restated, and with zero parameters there is no input ambiguity to resolve. The only remaining gap is the absence of when-to-use routing against siblings, which the simplicity of the tool largely mitigates.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No syntax or format detail is needed or missing.

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 (configured WordPress MCP sites), so the agent knows this enumerates sites rather than operating on one. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_site or diagnose_sites, leaving that distinction to inference. The 'configured' qualifier usefully scopes the resource to registered 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the right call when it needs an overview of all sites rather than one, but the description names no alternative, no prerequisite, and no when-not condition. With four sibling tools that touch sites in different ways, explicit routing guidance is missing.

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