List Omada sites

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotation: the returned shape (siteId + name) and the fact that other calls depend on it. It says nothing about auth, pagination, or errors, but for a trivial zero-arg read that gap is minor.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return fields plus dependency hint packed into a parenthetical. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing what comes back (siteId + name) and why it matters, which fully covers a zero-parameter list call. Marginally incomplete only in not noting ordering, pagination, or emptiness behavior.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description's mention of return fields is output information rather than a substitute for 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the sites on this controller') and even names the fields returned (siteId + name), so the agent knows what it gets. It is distinguishable from siblings like omada_devices/omada_clients by resource, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'which most other calls need' implies this is a prerequisite/lookup call agents should run before site-scoped operations, which is useful implied guidance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, so usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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