list_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results come from a cache (implying possible staleness and a relationship to refresh_cache), but says nothing about pagination or result-size limits for a 'list all' operation, or any auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence and the argument explained immediately after; nothing extraneous. Minor redundancy in restating the space-key filter inside the Args block.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the essentials are covered. However, with no annotations the definition should at least declare the read-only nature and the cache-refresh relationship to its siblings, which it does not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does identify space_key as an optional filter, but that is essentially a restatement of the parameter name plus the already-implied optionality from default ""; no format, example, or matching behavior is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a qualifying scope ('List all cached pages'), which also separates it from get_page and search_pages since it is a bulk cached listing. It never explicitly names or contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 word 'optionally' implies when the space_key filter applies, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over search_pages or get_page, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is only implied.

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