pr

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds: 'Read-only, no side effects. Returns JSON with paginated output by default; use --raw for plain text.' This goes beyond annotations by disclosing output format and the raw option. No contradictions.

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?

Four sentences: purpose, read-only+output, usage guidance, and alternatives. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 10 optional parameters, no required, and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, output format, and alternatives. It mentions 'deterministic pages' and default JSON output. Could briefly mention page boundary behavior, but schema parameters like page_length and max_lines cover that. Still quite 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema. The description adds overall context (headers, footers, dimensions) but does not significantly enhance individual parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 the tool's function: 'Paginate text into deterministic pages with configurable headers, footers, and page dimensions.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it is not for paragraph reflowing (use 'fmt') or line wrapping (use 'fold').

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use for print-ready formatted output.' Explicit when-not-to-use with alternatives: 'Not for paragraph reflowing — use 'fmt'. Not for line wrapping — use 'fold'.' Also references sibling tools 'fmt' and 'fold'.

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