bourne_site_list

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the value 'non-secret' and 'configured' which clarifies what is included and what is deliberately omitted. It does not describe the return format or error handling, but the output schema likely covers that, and no surprising side effects exist given the read-only annotation.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Every word contributes: 'List', 'configured', 'non-secret', 'local and SSH site contexts'. No filler or redundant 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?

For a zero-parameter listing tool with a read-only annotation and an output schema, the description provides the essential semantics: it enumerates configured sites, excluding secrets, and distinguishes local vs SSH. The output schema can define the exact structure, so nothing critical is missing. The description is complete for the tool's low complexity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them vacuously. The description correctly implies no input is needed. It adds the domain-specific constraint about non-secret and SSH contexts, which is useful but not about parameters directly. With no parameters, the description is adequate.

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 explicitly states the action 'List' and the resource 'configured non-secret local and SSH site contexts'. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like bourne_site_inspect or bourne_site_discover by specifying the listing scope and the exclusion of secrets. The phrasing is precise and not a tautology.

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 does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The intended use as a listing operation is implied by the verb, but no explicit guidance on selecting it among the many sibling tools is given. An agent could infer it is the default for enumerating sites, but that is not stated.

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