identify_dead_sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description aligns. It adds valuable behavioral context about the two classification categories and their priority. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence provides value.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no required fields, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, why to use it, and the output ordering. There are no obvious gaps.

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 100% with one parameter ('quiet_days'). The description echoes the default value (7) and adds context about how it affects classification. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding given the high coverage.

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 finds abandoned sites, defines two categories ('never_installed' and 'went_silent'), and specifies default parameters. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_sites' and 'summarize_all_sites' by focusing specifically on dead site identification.

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 explicit use cases ('which sites are dead', 'what should I delete', 'what needs investigating') and mentions priority ordering. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for an agent to select the tool.

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