list_page_images

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists image references, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what 'image references' includes (e.g., embedded vs. attachments), or how missing/invalid page IDs are handled. This lack of detail leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. The Args section is clear and structured, though it repeats information already available in the schema. It is concise without wasted words, but the brevity contributes to the lack of depth in other dimensions.

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 simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what constitutes an 'image reference' or whether the output contains URLs, paths, or IDs. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but the description still leaves gaps in conceptual clarity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, page_id, is described as 'The page ID,' which adds no meaningful information beyond the parameter's name and type. No format, source, or validation details are provided, making the description insufficient for properly understanding the parameter.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'List all image references in a page.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like get_page_sections or list_attachments. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from potentially similar tools, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 phrase 'in a page' implies the tool is used to retrieve image references for a given page, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are mentioned, leaving usage context only implied.

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