List pages in a space

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the important non-recursive traversal behavior, which is valuable. But it does not describe response shape, ordering, or other runtime behaviors, leaving some burden unfulfilled.

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, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the behavioral caveat placed second. Every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The definition is complete enough for correct invocation: required parameter, optional limit, and the key recursion pattern are covered. However, since there is no output schema, the description does not explain return value structure, which is a minor but real gap.

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%: spaceRef and limit are both fully documented with examples and defaults. The description adds only a contextual echo ('nested space's reference'), providing no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pages directly inside one space'), and explicitly clarifies scope by noting nested spaces are not expanded. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_spaces, list_wikis, and search_pages.

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?

It gives direct usage context for hierarchical descent ('call this again with the nested space's reference to descend'), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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