list_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the exact mechanism of pagination. The term 'pagination support' is vague.

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 sentence of 10 words, front-loading the main action. Every word is meaningful, and there is no extraneous information. It is optimally concise.

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 is minimal but covers the core functionality. Since an output schema exists, the lack of return value details is partially mitigated. However, it omits how to use the pagination tokens and does not mention the document identification prerequisite.

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 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any parameter. It only hints at pagination but does not explain doc_id, limit, or page_token. The description fails to add meaning beyond the schema's parameter names and types.

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 action (list), the resource (pages), and the scope (in a Coda doc), and mentions pagination support. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_page (single page) and create_page.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints. It lacks explicit exclusions or context for choosing this tool over others.

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