List Sites

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the underlying DN path, how the Configuration naming context is derived, and the failure mode 'returns an empty list if the container cannot be read'. That empty-result-on-failure behavior is genuinely useful and not in the annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first line, with supporting detail about the LDAP path and edge cases following. Every sentence carries information; there is minor redundancy between the forest-root path and the config_base note, but nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description still flags the empty-list case. For a read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool this is close to sufficient; the notable remaining gap is the unpaginated-sounding limit parameter and whether the listing is recursive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone leaves all three parameters opaque. The description compensates for config_base (pass explicitly for multi-domain forests) and implies the role of domain in deriving the config base, but says nothing about limit or its default of 100, leaving a third of the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the Active Directory sites (audit)'. It also names the exact LDAP container read, which makes the object type unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with look-alike siblings such as list_trusts or list_domain_controllers, but the resource is distinct enough to route correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '(audit)' tag hints at an auditing context, and the description states the one real branching rule, 'pass config_base explicitly for a multi-domain forest'. There is no guidance on when to choose this over search_ldap or get_dn for site objects, and no prerequisites are stated.

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