list_sites

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by stating 'Binding values stay server-side', which clarifies that sensitive binding values are not included in the response.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a valuable behavior note. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter read-only list operation. The description names the output fields and clarifies a key behavior, which is sufficient given the absence of an output schema. Minor details like pagination or ordering are not addressed, but they are not clearly essential for a basic site-listing tool.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully handles parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed; the baseline for a zero-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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('configured sites') and even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, bound source keys). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from its sibling 'list_sources', so the agent must rely on the tool name to distinguish them.

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 implies the tool is used to list sites, but it gives no guidance on when to choose this over the sibling tool 'list_sources'. No exclusions, conditions, or alternative-selection guidance is provided.

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