List all pages in a space revision

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond the HTTP method and path. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not enrich beyond what structured fields convey, such as whether results are paginated or the nature of the output.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with the HTTP path in parentheses. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 with no output schema, the description could be more complete by explaining the return format (e.g., list of page objects, pagination). The optional body parameter hints at limit/page but is not explained. Overall, it is adequate but not fully self-contained given the lack of an output schema.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description mentions the optional body as a JSON object for query parameters but adds no further detail over the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (pages in a space revision). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pages_in_change_request' and 'list_pages' by specifying the revision context. The HTTP method and path are provided for additional clarity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through the resource name, but given many sibling list tools (e.g., 'list_pages_in_change_request'), explicit guidance on when to choose this one would improve the score.

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