list_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers extensively: plan-gated viewer fields, the meaning of deleted_at, delete_reason semantics including non-restorable abuse takedowns, the old-worker missing-field quirk, and exact pagination behavior. This goes well beyond a typical description.

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 dense but every sentence carries a specific operational instruction or caveat. It front-loads the core purpose and then logically proceeds through gating, deletion semantics, legacy-worker behavior, and pagination without filler.

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 complexity, the absence of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent how to interpret returned fields, avoid dead links, handle non-restorable sites, and paginate correctly, leaving little to guesswork.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for client, before, and before_id by explaining their roles in filtering and pagination. The limit parameter is not explained, but it is self-evident as a page size; overall the gap is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "List sites owned by this API key," which clearly states what the tool does. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_site or list_client_spaces, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 rich usage context: filtering by client, pagination loop mechanics, and how to handle deleted or expired sites. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it, but the operational guidance is clear and actionable.

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