List Sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it discloses the size-cap truncation behavior, that data becomes null with an explanatory note, and that the operator's visibility scope governs results. It still omits read-only confirmation and whether any pagination or auth is required.

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?

Front-loads the purpose well, but the second sentence restates the exact return envelope keys even though an output schema already exists, which is partially redundant. The truncation rationale is worth keeping; the key enumeration is not.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the non-obvious truncation edge case and the visibility scope. The main gap is tying this tool to the broader site/content sibling set.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description has nothing to compensate for. Baseline for a no-parameter tool 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List all sites') and adds the scoping qualifier 'visible to the configured operator'. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like find_content or get_content, which an agent might otherwise confuse with a site lookup.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as find_content or list_operators, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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