List Sites

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context by explaining that sites are 'top-level containers' needed for querying other data (buildings, equipment, etc.), which aids in understanding dependencies and workflow, though it doesn't detail rate limits or auth specifics beyond API key access.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by explanatory context and usage guidance in four concise sentences. Each sentence adds value: defining sites, their role, return format, and when to use the tool, with no wasted words.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its importance in the workflow, and the return format, providing all necessary context for an agent to use it effectively without over-explaining.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is high. The description adds no parameter-specific information (as there are none), but it clarifies the tool's scope ('all building sites the current API key has access to'), which implicitly defines the input context, earning a score above the minimum.

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 action ('List all building sites') and resource ('sites'), distinguishing it from siblings like tacit_list_files (files) and tacit_timeseries (timeseries data). It specifies that sites are 'top-level containers' for physical locations, making the purpose specific and well-defined.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use this tool first to discover available sites before querying building data.' This indicates when to use it (as an initial discovery step) and implies alternatives (other tools for building data), offering clear context for selection.

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