Pb List Sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether results are cached, whether 'configured' implies credentials are required, or how many sites are typically returned. The one added constraint (board links must be on one site) is unexplained.

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?

Two short clauses with no padding, so length is fine, but both are sentence fragments and the second is cryptic rather than front-loaded explanation. Brevity here comes at the cost of specification, not from eliminating waste.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and there are no parameters to document. However, the description leaves the agent unable to judge where this fits in a plan-building workflow among nine siblings, and 'site' versus 'board' is never defined.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain argument syntax or defaults.

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 fragment 'Configured Jira sites' identifies the resource (Jira sites that are configured) and aligns with the tool name, but supplies no verb and never states that it enumerates them. The trailing clause 'board links must be on one' hints at the resource relationship without clarifying what the tool actually returns.

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 explicit statement of when to call this versus the nine sibling tools (pb_build_plan, pb_workload, etc.). The 'board links must be on one' clause weakly implies it is a prerequisite step before board-scoped operations, but the agent must infer both the condition and the ordering.

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