bing_sites_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden. It merely states it 'list all sites', implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, require authentication, or mention any side effects. For a simple list, this is minimal but acceptable; however, a clear statement of read-only behavior would improve transparency.

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 of 7 words, front-loaded with the key action. Every word is necessary and no filler exists. It is highly concise.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but arguably adequate. However, it lacks context about what information is returned (e.g., site names, URLs, verification status) and does not explain the 'verified' criteria. Given sibling tools like bing_sites_add, it could be more helpful by noting this is the read side of site management.

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 has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter information, but none is needed. According to the scoring rubric, zero parameters baseline is 4.

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 verb ('list'), the resource ('sites'), and the context ('verified in Bing Webmaster Tools'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bing_sites_add (which adds a site) and bing_sites_delete (which deletes), but does not differentiate from the similarly named 'sites_list' tool, which may be from a different context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is the read-only list for Bing Webmaster Tools, or that it should be used before adding or deleting sites. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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