site_resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description transparently states it is a read operation (List) and maps to GET. It discloses the types of resources returned, though it doesn't detail the output format or pagination. This is sufficient for a simple list operation.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second provides usage context. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no superfluous information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description provides only a high-level list of resource categories without specifying the response structure. For a simple resource listing tool, this is adequate but leaves the output format unclear, earning a mid-range score.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for site_id. The description adds no further semantics beyond the schema (which already says 'Site id from sites_list'), so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 resources attached to a site, enumerating specific types (databases, sub-domains, DNS zones, email domains). It also provides the HTTP mapping, distinguishing it from sibling tools like site_get or databases_list.

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 gives explicit contexts for use: 'Handy before deleting or migrating a site, or to find which database(s) belong to it.' While it lacks explicit when-not or alternatives, the guidance is clear and practical.

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