skims_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: results are 'normalized' and the URL is fixed server-side. However, it does not disclose the output shape, pagination behavior, or any access constraints, leaving a minimally adequate but thin behavioral profile.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds meaningful context about normalization and the fixed server-side URL.

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 list tool, the description covers the source and the key constraint that no URL parameter is needed. However, with no output schema, it leaves unresolved what 'normalized static pages' contains and how paging results are structured, which an agent would need to know for downstream processing.

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% with both page and limit already described in the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the server-side URL context but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List SKIMS static pages') and clarifies it returns 'normalized static pages from SKIMS'. This distinguishes it from product-level tools like skims_product, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling skims_page or skims_sitemaps.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skims_page, skims_sitemaps, or skims_sitemap_urls. The note that the storefront URL is fixed server-side is environmental context, not a usage directive.

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