List pages of an application

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 does mention that page ids and the default page are returned, which is mildly useful. However, it doesn't describe the return format, whether pages are ordered, or whether this is read-only vs. potentially triggering any side effects. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, more should be disclosed.

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?

One concise sentence that directly states the purpose and output. No wasted words or redundancy. Could arguably describe the output shape more, but as written it is efficient and front-loaded.

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, no output schema, no nested objects). The description adequately conveys the basic purpose and what's returned (ids and default page). Given the low complexity, the description is somewhat adequate, but it lacks any guidance on return structure and doesn't reference sibling tools for contrast.

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 a single documented parameter (applicationId as a string). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema since it doesn't clarify the format of the app id or where it can be obtained. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate, and there's no additional semantic depth added.

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 'Lists the pages of an application' with a clear verb+resource, which is reasonably specific. However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'appsmith_get_page' (which fetches a single page) or clarify whether this returns all pages across the listed application scope. It could more explicitly contrast with the single-page retrieval tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an applicationId obtained from list_applications first). No exclusions or alternative tool mentions. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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