List page components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful semantics beyond that—index ordering is back-to-front and the indexes are the shared key for other component tools—but says nothing about empty pages, pagination, or failure behavior.

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 with no filler. The payload content and field list come first, and the index-order/interop note is placed last as a supporting detail.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the fields returned (index, kind, layout with units in px). It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only edge-case behavior (empty page, ordering guarantees beyond back-to-front) is left unspecified.

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 (report_id, page) are already documented in the schema, including the 1-based/default-first-page semantics. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (List) and resource (charts, texts and shapes of a report page) and enumerates the returned fields (index, kind, layout x/y/width/height). The phrase 'other component tools take them' also sets it apart from describe_component, which consumes rather than produces indexes.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the mention that other component tools consume these indexes hints at the workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. vs list_report_pages). Adequate context, but the agent must infer the routing.

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