sort_pages

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 states the action but does not reveal what sorting does to the document—whether it reorders the page list, persists, or is reversible—nor what happens when order=CUSTOM is chosen without customOrder. For a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is well-sized for what it states, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and dependency context.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an ambiguous CUSTOM/customOrder dependency, the description leaves the agent without key invocation details. It does not clarify the scope of the sort (document-level page list), the consequences of the mutation, or how customOrder interacts with order. The definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond echoing the alphabetical/custom modes already exposed by the enum, and it does not clarify the dependency between order=CUSTOM and customOrder. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 ('sort') and resource ('pages') and names the two modes: alphabetical or custom order. This clearly communicates the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like reorder_node, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 such as reorder_node, merge_pages, or page_overview. There are no prerequisites, scope conditions, or when-not-to-use instructions. An agent must infer appropriate usage entirely from the tool name.

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