Seitendateien auflisten

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Die Dateien werden nicht verändert', establishing that this is a non-destructive read operation, and limits the scope to PDF/image files in the backup. It stops short of describing return format or error behavior, but the essential safety trait is covered.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences. The action and object are front-loaded, and the safety note is expressed in a single clause with no filler or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the object types, the backup scope, and the non-mutating behavior. It is complete enough to invoke safely, though it leaves return-value details unstated.

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 coverage is 100%: the single pageId parameter is already well documented as 'Seiten-ID aus get_notebook' in the schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it deserves the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Listet ... auf') with a concrete resource ('PDF- und Bilddateien' belonging to a page) and scopes the operation to the backup. This makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like export_page, which would export rather than list, and list_library, which targets the library instead of a page's assets.

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 use case is implied: an agent should call this when it needs the PDF and image files attached to a specific page within the backup. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternative tools, so the routing is left to inference.

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