Pages: list placeholders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the environment dependency ("Needs macOS + Pages") and the returned content shape, which is real context beyond the structured fields, though pagination or failure/error behavior is not mentioned.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing work: what it returns, the environment requirement, and the sequencing with its sibling. Front-loaded with the resource and no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be re-explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the remaining gaps an agent needs: environment prerequisite, content shape, and when to call it relative to pages_fill_placeholders.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents `path` (absolute or ~-prefixed). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (template placeholders in a .pages document), and it even says what each entry contains (tag + current text) with a concrete example of a letter's "Name"/"Date" fields. This separates it cleanly from pages_fill_placeholders, the write-side sibling.

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?

Explicit routing: "Use before pages_fill_placeholders to see the template's field tags," which tells the agent the ordering and the alternative. It lacks any when-not condition (e.g. what to do if the document has no placeholders), so it falls just short of a 5.

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