Get sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and 'Body fields: none', but does not describe pagination behavior or result format beyond what the schema already mentions. Since annotations carry most of the burden, this is adequate but not rich context.

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 minimal and to the point: 'Get sites' plus the endpoint and a reference. There is no wasted text, and the core action is front-loaded. For a simple GET list operation, this is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., a list of site objects). It also lacks any mention of authentication or response structure. The reference URL helps but is not sufficient for an agent to know what to expect from 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?

Schema description covers 100% of parameters, listing documented query parameters (search, status, offset, etc.) and noting explicit pagination. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond repeating the endpoint. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states 'Get sites' and provides the exact endpoint (GET /api/xm/1/sites), making it clear this is a list operation. It is distinguishable from the sibling tool xmatters_get_a_site, which is singular. The purpose is clear, though it doesn't explicitly say 'list all sites' or specify scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the singular get_a_site or other related tools. It does not mention that it returns all sites, nor does it suggest alternatives for filtering or pagination. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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