get-pages

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: accepts up to 50 titles, missing pages reported inline, content truncated at 50000 bytes with trailing marker, and requestedTitle conditional. No contradictions with annotations; these details enhance agent understanding.

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 a single well-structured paragraph: purpose first, then use cases, then behavioral details. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or fluff.

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 covers essential return behaviors (truncation, missing pages, redirect handling). However, it does not describe the full response structure (e.g., top-level format), which would improve completeness. Overall, comprehensive for reading pages but leaves some 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%, but the description adds value: explains 'content' enum context, details 'followRedirects' behavior (e.g., 'Redirected from:' line), and clarifies the 'titles' array limit. These enrich semantics beyond 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 (verb+resource), specifies returning wikitext source or metadata only, and distinguishes from sibling 'get-page' by noting it's for multiple pages. The phrase 'Suited to reading a cluster of related pages...' further clarifies the purpose.

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 explicitly gives use cases: 'reading a cluster of related pages, diffing a page family, or syncing pages to local storage.' It also tells when not to use it: 'For a single page or HTML output, use get-page.' This provides clear guidance and an alternative.

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