list_pages

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

The description states 'This is a read-only operation on local files — no network requests are made,' which is a valuable behavioral trait beyond the schema. It also explains the utility of word counts. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden and meets it well.

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 about 6 sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the sentence about word counts could be seen as slightly extraneous. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, read-only, with output schema) and good annotations coverage (even though annotations are missing, the description covers the essential), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and behavior adequately.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the parameter: 'jsonl_path: Full path to the pages.jsonl file. If empty, defaults to <MARKCRAWL_OUTPUT_DIR>/pages.jsonl.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title and default.

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 'List all pages from a previous crawl with their URLs, titles, and word counts.' It identifies the verb (list) and resource (pages from a crawl), and distinguishes from sibling tools like crawl_site, read_page, and search_pages.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to get an overview of available content before searching or reading specific pages,' providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, though the context implies such distinctions.

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