sigma_list_workbook_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral details such as pagination, return format, or implications of openWorldHint=true. The description contributes nothing beyond what the annotations already convey, so transparency is minimal.

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 sentence, but its brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It restates the tool name and omits essential information, making the description unhelpfully short.

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?

Despite having a simple input schema and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not define what a 'page' is, how workbook_id is used, or how this tool relates to siblings like sigma_list_workbook_page_elements. The presence of openWorldHint and many similar tools suggests more context is needed.

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 has one required parameter, workbook_id, with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not mention this parameter or add any meaning, such as format or constraints. Although the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to enhance understanding for the agent.

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 'List pages in a workbook' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'sigma_list_workbook_pages'. It does not add any specific context about what pages are or how this tool differs from siblings like sigma_list_workbook_page_elements, so it provides no meaningful differentiation beyond a synonym for the name.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent without criteria to choose between this and the many similar listing tools in the sibling list.

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