list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It accurately indicates a read-only list operation and scopes results to accessible sites. However, it does not disclose pagination, return format, or potential permission nuances beyond the access scope, leaving some behavioral expectations unstated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It names the action, resource, and scope with maximum brevity, and every element earns its place.

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-param, zero-schema tool, the description adequately conveys the operation and scope. It lacks an explicit return structure, but the simple list nature makes this acceptable; the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. The description adds a meaningful qualifier ('you have access to') that shapes the result set, aligning with the baseline 4 for parameter-free tools.

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 a specific action ('List all sites'), the resource ('sites (properties)'), and the scope ('you have access to'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_analytics and inspect_url, which are query/action tools. An agent can immediately understand the tool's purpose and differentiate it from alternatives.

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 implies usage by defining the result set as sites the caller has access to, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus siblings or any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the sibling names alone.

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