List 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists pages in two scopes, omitting any behavioral traits like pagination, default ordering, inclusion of archived pages, or whether the result is a flat list or grouped. The schema covers parameters but not runtime behavior.

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, tightly worded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It wastes no words and is entirely front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

With five parameters and an output schema defined, the description is adequate but minimal. The schema covers parameter semantics and the output schema defines the return format. However, the description does not explicitly clarify the default behavior (e.g., that workspace pages are listed when project_id is omitted), relying on the schema's parameter descriptions. It is sufficient for most agent calls but leaves some scope inference to the agent.

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 every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context about parameters, such as how project_id distinguishes workspace vs project pages, beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'pages', then distinguishes two scopes: workspace wiki pages and project pages. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_page (single page) or create_page, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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 implicit context for when to use the tool (list pages in either workspace or project scope) but does not give explicit exclusion guidance, such as telling users to use get_page for a single page or to avoid this for detailed retrieval. No alternatives are mentioned.

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