web_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two non-obvious traits: a hard cap of 20 nodes per page and that node offsets are revision-specific (so offsets cannot be reused across revisions). It omits read-only status and any auth or return-shape context.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the page-limit constraint before the pagination mechanics. No wasted words, though the phrasing 'List revision and files' is compressed to the point of ambiguity.

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 paginated list with no annotations and no output schema, the pagination contract is covered, but the description never clarifies what a 'revision' is, what the returned nodes look like, or whether results are stable across calls. Adequate but with clear 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that file_id plus node_offset selects 'remaining nodes' and that node offsets are revision-specific, which the schema's flat 'Node offset, default 0' does not convey.

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 states a listing operation over 'revision and files' and nodes, but the resource naming is muddy: the tool is 'web_pages' yet pages are never mentioned, and 'revision' is undefined. An agent can infer it enumerates files/nodes, but cannot cleanly distinguish it from siblings like web_timeline or web_read.

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?

No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites. It only tells you how to page, not when this tool is the right choice over web_read or web_find.

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