get_sites

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any permission requirements, default behavior when org_id is absent, or what the response contains. The 'list' verb implies non-destructiveness but this is not stated explicitly.

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, grammatically correct sentence with no waste. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it is minimal enough that conciseness borders on under-specification.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description. It does not clarify what a 'site' is, how org_id affects results, whether the list is exhaustive, or any pagination/limit behavior. An agent would have insufficient context to make nuanced decisions about invocation.

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 for the only parameter (org_id) is 100%, and the schema already states it is an optional Mist organization id. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action (list) and resource (sites) with an organizational scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_access_points or get_organizations, but the resource name is distinct enough for basic disambiguation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context such as whether org_id is required, what happens if omitted, or how it relates to other site-related operations. The description offers no usage direction beyond the literal action.

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