get_all_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and the graph scope, but it does not state the return shape, pagination behavior, or that journal pages are included by default; that default only appears in the schema.

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 one short front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes the operation, scope, or resource.

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 and the schema covers its only parameter, but there is no output schema and no usage guidance, so the agent is left without information about the returned page objects or when to prefer sibling tools. Adequate for a basic listing, 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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including its default value. The description adds no extra meaning about include_journals, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 names a specific verb and resource: get all pages in the current Logseq graph. The 'all' scope distinguishes it from single-page tools like get_page and get_journal_page, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like search_pages.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not say to use search_pages for filtered/query-based page lookup or get_page for a single page, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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