list_page_objects

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

The description does not disclose behavioral aspects such as read-only status, side effects, or output format beyond a vague parenthetical. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden, and it only says 'List' without explicitly stating that no modifications occur or what the response structure is.

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 that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key output fields. It contains no redundant or extraneous information, making it easy to parse.

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 simple list operation, the description adequately covers the essential context: it specifies the resource type, the scope (project), and the expected output fields. Given that there is no output schema, this parenthetical helps fill the gap. It doesn't mention error handling or edge cases, but those are not typically required for a basic list tool.

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 only parameter, 'project', is fully described in the schema with details about its meaning and default behavior. The description itself adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 page objects) and the resource (page objects in a project), with a helpful parenthetical on the returned fields. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_page_object or list_flows, but the tool name and description make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions (e.g., 'use this to get an overview of all page objects') or when a different tool like get_page_object might be more appropriate. The description is purely declarative.

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