list_site_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. It states it lists cached public pages, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any potential rate limits, pagination, or staleness of the cache. It doesn't contradict annotations (none), but the description is thin on behavioral nuance.

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?

Single sentence, efficient, and front-loaded with the key action. It's concise and to the point, though it could add a hint about usage.

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 output schema exists, so the description need not explain the return format. The tool is simple (no params) and the description covers core aspects. However, missing usage guidance and behavioral details (cache freshness) make it minimally adequate.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so there is no need for parameter explanations. The description adds value by specifying the source (llms.txt) and the contents (paths, titles, URLs), which helps the agent understand the output without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource: lists cached public site pages. Mentions source (llms.txt) and what's included (paths, titles, URLs), distinguishing it from get_page (single page) and search_site (search). Slight lack: does not explicitly state it returns all pages or any filtering.

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 implies it is for discovering cached public pages from llms.txt, which suggests use when you need an inventory of site pages. It doesn't explicitly compare with get_page or search_site, but the distinction is fairly obvious from the sibling names.

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