get-child-pages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, and the description reinforces that by framing it as traversal/showing rather than mutation. However, it does not disclose whether only direct children are returned, whether results are paginated, or what depth the traversal covers.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the sitemap-traversal framing and the returned resource. Nothing redundant and nothing to trim.

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 two-parameter read with full schema coverage and a readOnly hint, the essentials are present. It still leaves gaps an agent would care about: whether children are one level deep, whether includes changes the payload shape, and whether results are paginated – no output schema exists to answer these.

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 pageID ('Display children beneath a particular parent') and the includes enum are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes that a 'particular page' is the anchor, adding no further meaning about the includes options such as areas.content.

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 gives a specific verb (traverse/show) and resource (child pages of a particular page), and implies a parent-child sitemap relation. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names the sibling it is not (e.g. get-pages for a flat list).

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 only implied by the phrase 'traversal of the sitemap' – an agent can infer this is the hierarchical drill-down counterpart to get-pages. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, leaving the choice between get-child-pages and get-pages to inference.

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