sites_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does hint that each entry includes reachability information rather than just names. However, it never states that this is a read-only, side-effect-free call, nor whether authentication is required or how large the result set can be.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the object of the listing comes before the qualifier. It is on the terse side — 'what they can reach' is slightly ambiguous phrasing that a few more words could sharpen.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is roughly proportionate but leaves the return shape undefined: 'what they can reach' gestures at permissions or scopes without saying what fields come back. An agent knows what it gets in broad strokes but not how to interpret the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The phrase 'configured sites' usefully implies the set is server-side configuration rather than a caller-supplied filter.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('configured Atlassian sites') and adds scope ('what they can reach'). It is obviously distinct from the page_* and issue_* siblings, which operate on content rather than site configuration, though it never explicitly names that distinction.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this should be called first to discover sites before other operations, or that it takes no arguments and cannot filter. The agent must infer the discovery use case entirely from the verb and resource.

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