auth_list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds useful context about what is reported (bridge connection, allowed targets). However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe/non-mutating or describe potential side effects like checking the extension connection.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action ('List') and then provides the key output scopes. No wasted words, and it is easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return contents (auth sources, bridge status, allowed Cloak targets). It is slightly ambiguous about the relationship between 'sources' and 'sites,' but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and expected output.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what the list operation returns, though there are no parameter details to clarify.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'registered Chrome authentication sources,' plus the additional scopes of bridge connection status and allowed Cloak targets. This distinguishes it from sibling operations like auth_sync_to_cloak or cloak_debug_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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any sibling tools, so the agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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