List pages

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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, non-open-world read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the exact return shape, including the 0-based index convention and cell count, which preempts off-by-one errors in downstream edit_diagram calls. It stops short of stating scope caveats (e.g., whether hidden or master pages are included).

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 tight sentences: the first states scope and output fields, the second gives the routing advice. Everything is front-loaded and every clause earns its place by either defining the resource or guiding downstream tool selection.

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?

With no input parameters, no output schema, and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is complete: it names the resource, enumerates the four returned fields, and tells the agent how the result feeds six sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces this by implying the tool is scoped implicitly to 'the current diagram' with no arguments. That scoping statement is useful context for an agent that might otherwise expect a diagram id argument.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List every page (tab) in the current diagram') and preempts the obvious terminology ambiguity by equating page with tab. The output field list (id, name, 0-based index, cell count) makes the resource unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_saved_diagrams.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('before targeting one with...') and names six specific downstream tools that consume the returned page identity. This is exactly the routing an agent needs to sequence page discovery before page-level mutations or exports.

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