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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't describe return format (e.g., array of sites, pagination), permissions required, rate limits, or error conditions. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('List all WordPress sites on a specific SpinupWP server') earns its place by specifying scope and resource.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of sites. It doesn't explain what information is included in the listing (e.g., site IDs, names, statuses) or how to handle the output. For a list operation with no structured output documentation, this is inadequate.

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%, with the single parameter 'server_id' documented as 'The ID of the SpinupWP server'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as where to find server IDs or valid ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('WordPress sites on a specific SpinupWP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_servers' by specifying sites rather than servers, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_site' (which likely retrieves a single site).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_sites' over 'get_site' (for single sites) or 'list_servers' (for servers), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid server ID. Usage context is implied but not articulated.

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