list_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It discloses that the tool returns all pages and lists the exact fields ('title, url slug, published state'), which implies a read-only operation. It does not mention potential ordering, pagination, or error cases, but for a simple listing tool this is adequate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key output fields. There is no redundant or filler content; every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, the description omits usage guidance and parameter format, and does not mention any behavior like pagination or empty results. It is acceptable for a basic list tool but leaves some gaps.

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 input schema has only one parameter, 'course', with no description. The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only says 'in the course' without clarifying whether course is an ID, slug, or name. The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving the agent to guess how to specify the course.

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 returns every page in a course with specific fields (title, url slug, published state), which corresponds to listing pages. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page, which retrieves a single page, and create_page/update_page, which modify pages. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', so it is not a perfect 5.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need all pages in a course, rather than a specific page (get_page) or a different resource type (list_modules, list_courses). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, and there is no direct comparison to sibling tools in the description.

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