list_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the operation is a read-only list, the scope, returned fields, and optional filtering. However, it omits common list-tool behavioral details like pagination, ordering, result limits, or whether unpublished pages are included.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the action and resource, lists return fields, and mentions the optional filter. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only list with one optional parameter, the description is adequate: it defines scope, return fields, and filtering. It could mention pagination or result limiting, but those are not essential for correctly making the call.

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 already describes the only parameter fully ('Optional text to filter pages by name or slug'). The description's mention of a 'search string' adds no meaningful additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List'), the resource ('the workspace's pages'), the fields returned (id, name, slug, published), and an optional filter. It clearly differentiates this collection-level tool from single-page operations like get_page and mutating tools like create_page or delete_page.

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 implies use when a listing of workspace pages is needed, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as get_page or list_page_types. There is no guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose for a single page or page types.

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