yootheme_lite_list_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful constraint beyond them: it guarantees credentials are never exposed, telling the agent the returned payload is sanitized.

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 two clauses, both of which carry information (what is listed, and the credential-safety guarantee). No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 no-arg, read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers both the operation and the shape of the returned fields (aliases, platform names). It could say more about ordering or completeness of the list, but it is adequate as-is.

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 no schema semantics to compensate for; the baseline for an empty input schema is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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 and resource ('List configured site aliases and platform names'), so an agent can tell it apart from list_pages, ping_site, and summarize_layout. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer in ambiguous cases, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-routing guidance. The agent can infer this is a discovery/enumeration call, but nothing in the text states prerequisites or when another sibling is more appropriate.

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