qrtap_list_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. It usefully discloses that page content is excluded from the response and that only public (not draft-private?) organizational pages are listed, which shapes expectations. It omits volume, ordering, and pagination behavior, which is a real but modest gap for a zero-parameter read.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource before the routing guidance. Every clause adds distinct value — the field list, the content exclusion, the sibling pointer, and the selection condition.

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 output schema, the description must describe results, and it does by naming the six returned fields plus the notable omission of content. Only lacking detail is result volume/ordering for an organization with many pages, which an agent might want before calling.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, and the field enumeration helps frame what the results mean without overreach.

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 and resource — 'List the organization's public pages' — and immediately enumerates the returned fields (slug, segment, theme, published state, version, public_url). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from qrtap_get_page and qrtap_create_page, so an agent can pick it without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative ('use qrtap_get_page to read it') plus a positive selection condition: 'use this when you only need to discover the slug or check whether a page exists yet.' When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both stated outright.

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