list_pages

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns metadata only (URL, title, depth, crawled_at, content_length), is paginated and sorted by URL, and reflects stored crawled pages rather than live fetches. It doesn't discuss errors or partial failures, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three focused sentences front-load the core action, state output scope and shape, and route to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers action, scope, output fields, pagination ordering, and downstream tool usage. The schema supplies the remaining parameter details, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the baseline applies. The description's mention of pagination and 'for a site' mildly reinforces site_key, offset, and max_results, but it does not add parameter meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'crawled pages for a site' and adds pagination and sort order. It also distinguishes itself from read_page and get_page by explicitly stating that it returns metadata only and that the pages are crawled, not live.

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 routes downstream usage: URLs returned here should be passed to read_page for stored markdown, while get_page is for live re-fetching rather than crawled copies. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance for the relevant siblings.

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