get-child-pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention behavior such as recursion depth, ordering, what happens for leaf pages, or the effect of the 'includes' parameter. The phrase 'traversal of the sitemap' adds some context but lacks concrete details about output or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence that earns its place. It is concise, with no filler or redundant phrasing, and clearly communicates the tool's core purpose.

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 hierarchy navigation tool, the description covers the essential purpose and the schema handles parameters. However, it lacks guidance on the 'includes' parameter's effect, expected return shape, or edge cases (e.g., non-existent parent). Given no annotations or output schema, this is adequate but not rich.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The 'includes' parameter's schema description is tautological ('includes parameter'), but the enum values clarify its intent; the description does not compensate for this weakness.

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: traversing the sitemap to show child pages of a specific page. It uses a specific verb ('showing') and resource ('child pages of a particular page'), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like get-pages (all pages) or get-page-by-id (single 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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you need to navigate the page hierarchy by retrieving children of a given page. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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