List an article's subpages

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about tab naming conventions but no additional behavioral constraints or edge cases. It is consistent with annotations, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides illustrative examples and a usage pointer. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a one-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers what it does and how to proceed. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but that is implied by the tool name and the workflow. Given the simplicity, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema fully documents the single 'title' parameter with an example and redirect behavior, so the description need not add more. Since schema coverage is 100%, this meets the baseline without requiring extra description.

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 states a specific verb 'list' and resource 'subpages of an article', and provides concrete examples of typical subpage names. It clearly distinguishes this from reading a page (get_page), making the tool's role 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?

It explicitly suggests a workflow: find subpages here, then read one with get_page. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other tools like get_page_sections, the guidance is sufficient for a simple list operation and points to the natural next step.

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