list_uib_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description confirms it lists pages but does not add behavioral details beyond what annotations imply, such as whether it returns all pages without a filter or the structure of the response. Given annotations, the description is adequate but adds minimal transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb 'List'. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it both concise and easily scannable.

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 tool is simple with optional parameters and no output schema. The description states the core function and the inclusion of route configurations, but it does not describe the return format or fields, which would help the agent understand the output structure. For a basic list tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters (app and limit) are already documented with clear meanings. The tool description does not elaborate on how these parameters affect the listing (e.g., default behavior when app is omitted or how limit applies). It adds no new semantic value beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not improve upon it.

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 'List UI Builder pages and their route configurations' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'UI Builder pages', and distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_uib_page (singular) and list_uib_components (different resource). The addition of 'and their route configurations' specifies the scope of the list, making the purpose specific and 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_uib_page for a specific page or other list tools for different resources. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling list.

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