list_side_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default behavior (short), the limitation on heavy JSONB (delegated to view_side_page), and that medium/full include draft/live version IDs. This is useful context, though it doesn't mention auth, rate limits, or pagination. Slightly above baseline because of the concrete behavioral insights.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first states the primary purpose and default. The second conveys performance guidance and a practical tip. Every clause earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the essentials. It explains default behavior, what fields appear at different detail levels, and points to the alternative for heavy JSONB. For a list tool with only two parameters, this is complete and sufficient without needing to explain return values in detail.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the default for 'detail' and what each detail level includes beyond the schema's enum descriptions, particularly the version ID fields at medium/full. This goes beyond the schema's dry enum explanation.

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 and resource: 'List side pages attached to a landing page.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_landing_pages (lists landing pages, not side pages) and view_side_page (views a single side page in detail). The 'attached to a landing page' qualifier adds necessary context.

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?

Offers clear guidance: default detail='short', and explicitly says heavy JSONB is only available via view_side_page, steering agents away from using full detail in this list. Also explains the value of medium/full (version IDs) for spotting unpublished drafts without a second call, helping agents choose the right detail level.

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