list_sites

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

The description goes beyond the tool name by specifying that it returns basic attributes (_id, desc, name), which gives the agent a concrete understanding of the response. With no annotations provided, this disclosure of return payload is valuable. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or any limitations, though the verb 'List' strongly implies it.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes exactly the necessary details. There is no wasted language or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (zero params, output schema available) and the description's inclusion of return fields, it is fairly complete. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from 'stat_sites', but that is more of a usage guideline issue than a completeness issue.

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 per rubric the baseline is 4. The description reinforces that there are no required inputs, and with schema description coverage at 100% (empty schema), there is nothing missing.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all sites managed by this UniFi controller'). It is unambiguous and easy to understand, but it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'stat_sites', which could be interpreted as the stats variant of site listing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'stat_sites'. The description simply says what the tool does, but offers no context about when it is appropriate or when another tool should be used.

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