List pages in a workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a key trait: 'Read-only.' It also states the payload outlook (titles, ids, and page types), which is not available elsewhere since there is no output schema. It stops short of covering failure modes or pagination on larger workspaces, but for a simple read operation this is solid transparency.

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 sentences with zero wasted words: the primary action and scope are front-loaded, the output contents follow in a parenthetical, and the read-only note is a compact trailing clause. Each element earns its place and none duplicates schema content.

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?

Given the minimal signature (one required param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it names the input from the schema, states the output composition, and flags side-effect safety. The only missing bits are lower-priority context, such as sort order/tree-depth presentation or behavior on invalid workspace names, which are minor for such a simple read-only tool.

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?

The only parameter, 'workspace', is 100% described in the input schema ('Workspace name or id (from list_workspaces)'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond stating the tool's scope ('of a workspace'), so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific resource ('page/view tree of a workspace'), enumerates the returned data (titles, ids, type: document/grid/board/…), and adds a 'Read-only' safety marker. The tree-listing phrasing implicitly differentiates this tool from siblings like search_pages and get_page, but it never explicitly names the alternative, which keeps this from the top score.

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 intended use case—retrieve the whole page tree of a workspace for an overview—is implied by the wording. However, there's no explicit routing guidance, such as when to prefer search_pages (e.g., finding a page by content) or get_page (e.g., retrieving a single page's detail). An agent comparing this to search_pages gets only an implicit signal of how they differ.

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