get_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description states a read-only action ('List') and implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly confirm that it does not modify the document, nor does it mention error conditions (e.g., what happens if no document is open). For a read-only tool this is acceptable, but the lack of explicit behavioral detail leaves a small gap.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the returned fields. Every word contributes value, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential information: what it returns (name, size, shape count) and on what resource (active document). It omits error handling and preconditions, but for a list operation this is a minor gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate—the description correctly avoids irrelevant parameter guidance.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all pages in the active Visio document'. It also specifies the returned attributes (name, size, shape count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_shapes (which lists shapes) and get_document_info (which covers document-level metadata). No ambiguity remains.

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 specifies the context ('active Visio document'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a simple list operation with zero parameters, the intended scope is clear. It could improve by noting that it complements get_shapes (for shape details) or requires an open document, but that is minor.

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