tldraw_list_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output and implies a read operation, but omits explicit safety statements (e.g., non-destructive, no side effects). The description is adequate but does not go beyond listing the return fields.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('List all pages') and specifies the output fields. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential information. It states what is returned (IDs, names, shape counts) and implies that these are for the current document. Minor improvements could clarify scope, but it is mostly 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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema already covers all (100%). With zero params, the baseline score is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly implies no user input is required.

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 tool lists all pages and returns IDs, names, and shape counts. It uses a specific verb 'list' and resource 'pages', and the output details distinguish it from sibling list tools like tldraw_list_shapes or tldraw_list_bindings.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or comparative advantages over siblings like tldraw_get_document_info or tldraw_list_shapes. The usage is only implied by the purpose.

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