List Local Sites

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content (names, domains, IDs, service versions), but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or performance. This aligns with the calibration example where read-only tools with some added context score 3.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and informative. It includes all necessary details without redundancy or 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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what information it returns. No additional context is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning; it focuses on the output, which is appropriate. No parameter information is 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 the verb 'List', the resource 'WordPress sites configured in Local by Flywheel', and the included output fields (names, domains, IDs, service versions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wp_site_info, which likely targets a single site.

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 gives clear context: it lists all sites, implying use when an overview of configured sites is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the scope is obvious given the tool name and sibling context.

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