get-pages

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: the byte budget mechanism, inline reporting of missing pages, order preservation, truncation behavior with a marker, and the requestedTitle nuance. These details are not covered by the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and greatly help the agent understand response handling. No contradiction with annotations found.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose and content mode, then lists typical use cases, then explains the budget behavior, then truncation, and closes with the sibling alternative and a nuance. Every sentence adds essential value without redundancy, achieving high information density without bloat.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the return format comprehensively: missing pages reported inline, byte budget truncation with a marker, ordering, and the follow-up call for remaining pages. It also clarifies the difference from get-page and the requestedTitle behavior. These are the crucial details an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret responses.

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 schema already documents all five parameters, including the '0..50' limit for titles and the meaning of content and metadata. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it speaks about tool-level behavior (byte budget, response ordering) rather than explaining individual parameters. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema covers all parameters.

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 returns multiple wiki pages in one call, specifying the resource (wiki pages) and the action (returns). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-page by naming the sibling and the condition to use it (single page or HTML output). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Suited to reading a cluster of related pages, diffing a page family, or syncing pages to local storage.' It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'For a single page or HTML output, use get-page.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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