doc_page_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is read-only (listing pages) and describes the return format. It could explicitly state no side effects, but the word 'list' implies safety. The automatic project linking is a useful behavioral detail.

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 compact with three to four sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds return details and usage advice. Efficient, though could potentially combine the last two sentences.

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?

All relevant aspects are covered: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and how to call it (with optional projectId). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently conveys the return structure. No gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for projectId. The description adds value by restating the automatic linking behavior in natural language, which reinforces understanding. This goes beyond the schema's baseline.

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 'List all documentation pages for a project, grouped by section' and specifies the return structure (title, id, section, sortOrder). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doc_page_create or doc_page_update.

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?

Explicitly advises to use this tool 'before creating or updating pages', giving a concrete use case. It also explains the automatic project linking behavior when projectId is omitted, providing clear context for usage.

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