mt_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. It states it's a read operation ('取得します' - get), which is safe, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description is minimal and lacks critical context for a tool with parameters.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese ('ウェブページ一覧を取得します') that directly states the purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal content.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return format, or how to interpret results. For a list operation with filtering and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (siteId, limit, offset, status) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining relationships between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'ウェブページ一覧を取得します' (Get a list of web pages) clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('ウェブページ一覧' - list of web pages). It distinguishes from siblings like mt_get_page (singular) and mt_list_content_data/entries/sites, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from mt_list_content_data which might overlap in domain.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mt_get_page (for a single page) or mt_list_content_data/entries (for other content types). The description implies usage for listing web pages but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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