list_my_sites

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the scope ('accessible by the current account') and implies a read-only list operation, but it does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or any potential side effects. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not richly transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loading the verb and resource, and every phrase adds value. It is concise and well-structured.

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 a simple list operation with three optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers its purpose and a key use case (finding site_id for switching), which is sufficient for the tool's complexity. It does not explain the return structure, but that is not critical for a list tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (page, term, limit) having its own description. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 lists all sites accessible by the current account, using a specific verb ('list') and resource ('sites'). It also explicitly ties its purpose to finding a site_id for switching, which distinguishes it from related tools like switch_site or create_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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to find a site_id before switching.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the context is strong enough for most agents to understand.

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