Lista site

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context about the returned fields (identifier, domain, status, last deployment status) and the server argument's accept values, but does not go beyond that into pagination, ordering, or other behavioral nuances.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and scope, then adds the key parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description provides the important response fields and the scope alternatives. Annotations cover the safety context, and the schema covers all parameters. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though an explicit mention of the 'search' filter could have made it slightly stronger.

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%: all three parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The description repeats that 'server' accepts a name or ID, which the schema already states, and it does not add new meaning to 'org' or 'search'. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Wypisuje' (lists) with a clear resource ('site') and a defined scope: within an organization or on a specified server. It also names the returned fields, making it easy to distinguish from singular tools like forge_get_site or server-focused tools like forge_list_servers.

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 clearly communicates the two contexts in which the tool makes sense: listing sites in an organization or on a specific server. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool versus a more targeted lookup.

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