get-pages-by-site

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

Annotations cover read safety, and the description goes further by disclosing the exact result envelope (Matched/Returned/Truncated/Root/SiteName/Pages), the truncation contract, and the semantic rule that decides membership (presentation presence, not template naming). It stops short of noting permissions or ordering, but this is far more than the annotations supply.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then the return shape, then the inclusion rule. Three tight sentences with no filler, though the inclusion clause is somewhat long for the value it carries.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly supplies the return structure and truncation semantics itself, plus the definition of what qualifies as a page. For a read-only listing tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents path, siteName, limit, database, and rootPath; the description adds nothing about them. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does all the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the pages of a site') and sharpens it with an inclusion rule that separates a real page from a template-naming guess. It does not, however, name or contrast itself with the obvious sibling search-site-pages, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With search-site-pages and list-sites among siblings, an agent gets no signal about which to pick for a filtered search versus a full enumeration.

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