list_sites

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'list', implying a read operation. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are paginated. Since annotations are absent, the description bears full responsibility but fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. It conveys the core functionality without any extraneous information.

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 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the purpose but lacks details about the output format or any additional context (e.g., whether sites are listed alphabetically). For a straightforward list tool, this may be sufficient, but it could be more complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides complete information. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; given no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'list' and resource 'WordPress sites configured for this MCP server'. Sibling tools are all specific actions (plugins, pages, templates), so this tool's purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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?

No explicit usage guidance provided. While the description implies it should be used to see available sites, there is no mention of when to use this vs alternatives or any prerequisites. However, given its straightforward nature, a lack of guidance is acceptable but not ideal.

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