s1_list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (name, state, licence counts, SKU/suite, expiration, health status) and implies read-only behavior. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but the schema covers params; the return-field disclosure adds meaningful value beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the main action and context; the second explains additional return fields and usage. No wasted words or redundant 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, but the description explicitly lists the returned fields, which fulfills that need. It also provides the MSP/MSSP context and workflow, making the tool self-contained for an agent unfamiliar with SentinelOne.

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 each parameter adequately described. The description does not add extra parameter semantics, but it does mention feeding site IDs into other tools, which relates to output rather than parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 'List sites' with a specific resource (sites) and adds context about MSP/MSSP segmentation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on site discovery as the client list entry point, not agents, threats, or activities.

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?

It explicitly says 'use this to discover the client list, then feed site IDs into the other tools,' giving clear workflow guidance. This tells the agent when to use this tool and how it relates to alternatives, making it a natural first step in an MSP/MSSP context.

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