sitebay_list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'authenticated user' (implying auth needs) and describes the return format, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's paginated, rate-limited, or has side effects. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency about how the tool behaves.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Minor deduction because the 'Returns' section could be more concise by referencing the output schema.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about authentication requirements, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a list operation. With no annotations, these gaps prevent a higher score.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'team_id: Optional team ID (UUID4) to filter sites by team.' This clarifies its purpose (filtering) and format (UUID4), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Since there's only one parameter and the description fully explains it, this earns a high score.

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 tool's purpose: 'List all WordPress sites for the authenticated user.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('WordPress sites'), and scope ('for the authenticated user'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sitebay_get_site' (single site) or 'sitebay_list_ready_made_sites' (different resource type), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sitebay_get_site' for retrieving a single site or 'sitebay_list_teams' for listing teams first. There's also no information about prerequisites (e.g., authentication requirements) or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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