list_sites

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds significant behavioral detail: it specifies the exact return format for both markdown and JSON, including the structure of the JSON object. It also discloses that sites are configured via an environment variable, which is context not available 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 description is well-structured with a clear intent, relationship to siblings, configuration note, and Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes essential information, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 simple listing tool, the description is fully self-sufficient: it covers purpose, usage, configuration, parameters, and return formats. The relationship to sibling tools is explicitly stated, and the presence of an output schema further enriches the context. No gaps remain for the agent to guess.

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 schema fully documents the `response_format` parameter with an enum and default. The description goes beyond by explaining concretely what each format returns (line-by-line markdown vs. structured JSON with a default site and sites list), helping the agent choose the right format. This adds value beyond the schema's generic description.

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 tool lists Verso documentation sites the server is configured to serve, using the verb 'List' and a specific resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining how each site's alias is used as the `site` argument in `search`, `list_kinds`, and `fetch_page`.

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 explicitly explains that the returned aliases should be passed to sibling tools, providing concrete usage instructions. It also mentions configuration via `VERSO_MCP_SITES`, giving the agent context for how sites are populated and when to expect them.

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