list_websites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return fields and implies filtering via the example 'Show active websites', but does not mention pagination, rate limits, or behavior when no sites match. This is adequate but not rich, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences plus a concise example, with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and adds essential return-field details and usage examples in a compact, efficient structure.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema, so the description appropriately includes return field details and examples. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_website, and does not mention pagination, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Slightly incomplete due to the missing sibling differentiation, hence a 4.

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 input schema documents both parameters (search and status) with descriptions and an enum, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds only a minor hint about filtering via the example, without elaborating on search semantics or format. Baseline 3 is warranted as the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('websites'), scoped to 'your account'. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_website (which suggests a single site) and create_website, and even specifies return fields (name, CDN hostname, status, domain count), leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (listing all websites in the account) and includes example prompts ('List my websites', 'Show active websites') that illustrate invocation and filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, though the sibling list provides implicit contrast.

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