list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It accurately describes a read-only list operation with no side effects. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, the behavior is simple and straightforward, and the description adds the context of what a site represents.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('List every Anker power system...'), then provides context and a usage tip. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It provides enough context about the grouping concept and how to use the tool as a starting point, making it complete for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% trivial. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the result is a list keyed by site ID and what a site represents, which is valuable context for an agent.

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 tool lists every Anker power system (site) linked to the account, keyed by site ID. It explains what a site is (group of devices at one location) and distinguishes from siblings like list_devices, which lists devices rather than 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?

The description explicitly says 'Start here (or with list_devices) to discover the IDs needed by the other tools,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool as an entry point and offering an alternative. It does not specify conditions for not using it, but the context is clear.

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