list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states that all accessible websites are listed, but lacks details on pagination, sorting, or what 'access' means (e.g., owned vs. shared). The description is minimally adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No extraneous words, information is front-loaded, and every part 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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. It could mention if results are ordered or paginated, but for basic functionality it is complete enough.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds meaning by specifying the output includes domains and IDs, which is useful. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description meets it.

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 all websites the user has access to, including domains and IDs. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('websites'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_site' or 'share_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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. However, the tool is self-explanatory as a basic retrieval listing all accessible sites. Given the simplicity, implicit usage is clear but could benefit from stating it's the go-to for site enumeration.

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