list_sites

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: this endpoint requires legacy login (OMADA_USER/OMADA_PASS) and the Open API path cannot serve it in v0.1, pointing to README for the auth x endpoint matrix. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to know before attempting the call.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, then immediately covers the auth caveat. Every part earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema details needed (output schema exists), the description covers the key gaps: no annotations means it must disclose auth requirements, which it does thoroughly. For a zero-param list tool, this is complete – it tells the agent what to expect and what's required to call it.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details, but the auth prerequisite is effectively an implicit input requirement (needs OMADA_USER/OMADA_PASS credentials), which is useful semantic context.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('sites') and even specifies the exact output fields ('id + name'). An agent can immediately distinguish this from siblings like list_devices or get_controller_info, which target different resources.

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 implies usage ('List sites managed by this controller') but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. There's no sibling differentiation or condition named. The auth note is a prerequisite, not usage guidance.

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