list_status_pages

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

The description adds that the operation supports optional filtering and returns a list, which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations already imply.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but could include more detail (e.g., default limit, filter options) without becoming verbose.

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 description covers the basic operation and return type, but does not mention pagination, default values, or the specific filtering options available. Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description mentions 'query_model: Optional filtering parameters' without elaborating on its structure or the available filters (limit, status_page_type). The schema provides descriptions for the sub-parameters, so the description adds minimal value. The 0% schema description coverage context suggests the tool description itself does not detail parameters.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'Status Pages', which is a specific and accurate purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other resources or perform other actions.

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling 'list_' tools for related entities like impacts or severities.

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