get-pages

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: accepts up to 50 titles, missing pages reported inline, content truncation at 50000 bytes with trailing marker, and reference to get-page for sections.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficient in conveying constraints and alternatives.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately sets expectations: inline reporting of missing pages and content truncation. It also directs to get-page for specific sections, making the context complete for a batch read tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 50-title limit, truncation behavior, and how missing pages are handled, which are not in the schema descriptions.

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 tool returns multiple wiki pages in one call, specifying wikitext source or metadata only. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get-page by noting that for single pages or HTML output, get-page should be used.

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 provides explicit use cases: reading a cluster of related pages, diffing a page family, or syncing to local storage. It also gives a clear exclusion: for a single page or HTML output, use get-page.

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