list_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns only metadata, not full content, and implies a read-only operation via 'List'. It also scopes to 'your' pages, which is a behavioral constraint. It doesn't mention side effects or auth requirements, but for a list operation these are less critical.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the purpose and filters, and the second clarifying the return format. It is front-loaded, contains no redundant wording, and every phrase 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?

For a list tool with 5 optional params and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it states what is returned (metadata only) and the scope. It doesn't enumerate metadata fields, but that's not necessarily required for a list operation. The pagination and sorting details are already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently 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?

All 5 parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions, defaults, and enums (100% coverage). The description only summarizes these filters ('status, pinned state, pagination') without adding extra semantics or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'List' and resource 'generated pages', with a parenthetical defining pages as 'documents created from thoughts' to distinguish from sibling tools like list_thoughts. It also clarifies the return scope ('page metadata without full content'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly sets the context: listing the user's own pages with optional filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the parenthetical about pages being created from thoughts helps differentiate from similar list tools. No direct 'use this instead of X' guidance, but it's adequate for common usage.

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