Lister les sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful details like the HTTP GET endpoint and the return fields, but it does not mention pagination, error behavior, or any other operational nuance.

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 compact and packs the endpoint, resource, and returned fields into a single line. There is slight redundancy between the title 'Lister les sites' and the descriptive start, but no unnecessary elaboration.

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 low-complexity list operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information: it identifies the resource, the filter (entrepriseId), and the fields returned. It could mention pagination or error scenarios, but these are not critical for correct invocation here.

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 coverage is 100%: entrepriseId is documented as an encoded hashid. The description mentions 'ID encodé' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Retourne tous les sites') and the resource ('sites de l'entreprise'), and specifies the output includes encoded ID and URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getSite (single site) and createSite (creation).

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 makes the intended use case clear—retrieving all sites for a given enterprise—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative such as getSite or createSite. There is no misleading guidance, but the when/why choice is left to inference.

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