List Site Manager sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention that results are paginated, that nextToken must be followed, or that statistics can be very large (both only in the schema). No context beyond structured fields.

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?

It is a single three-word fragment with no waste, but that is terseness rather than disciplined conciseness — there is no verb and no front-loaded statement of what the call returns. Nothing needs cutting; something needs adding.

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?

For a paginated list tool with no output schema and a crowded family of similarly named site/host listing tools, the description leaves the agent without the pagination model or the layer distinction needed to choose and page correctly. The annotations cover safety, but the operational context is missing.

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 100% and all three parameters (pageSize, nextToken, includeStatistics) carry rich descriptions, including the size caveat for statistics. The description contributes no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 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 fragment 'Account-level sites' does identify the resource and adds a scope qualifier (account-level) that hints at the Site Manager layer rather than a per-network-application layer. But it omits the verb and never names the sibling list tools (unifi_net_list_sites, unifi_gen_listsites) it must be told apart from, so the purpose is only vaguely conveyed.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over unifi_net_list_sites or unifi_gen_listsites, and nothing states prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and the words 'account-level'.

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