pages_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about the file format (compressed Protobuf) and why this tool is necessary, which goes beyond a simple 'read' statement. It does not disclose error handling or non-destructiveness explicitly, but the read-only nature is implied and the format explanation provides meaningful behavioral insight.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the main purpose, provides necessary context in one additional sentence, and lists the argument clearly. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool, and the description covers purpose, usage rationale, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema only provides a title 'Path' with no description. The description compensates fully by explaining 'path: path to the `.pages` file.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema, completely covering the single parameter and its expected format.

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 that it extracts text from an existing Pages document with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining that it is the only practical way to read a .pages file, which differentiates it from pages_create, pages_export, and other tools.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool: to read the text of a .pages file, because the format is compressed Protobuf and no text tool opens it. This provides a clear context for use, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond the implication that export might be for other purposes.

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