list_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, permission requirements, or whether unpublished/draft pages are included. 'List all' even implies an unbounded result set without any caveat about paging.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is efficient. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but it commits no structural waste.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at pagination behavior or what a page record contains. As written, an agent knows what it does but little about what it gets back or when it is the right 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required siteId, so the description must compensate. It only implies that siteId identifies the SharePoint site whose pages are listed, offering no guidance on ID format or how to obtain a valid siteId (e.g., via get_site_by_url or list_my_sites).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all pages of a SharePoint site'), which is clearly distinct from the singular get_page or the mutating create_page/update_page siblings by implication of 'all'. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or clarifies the boundary with get_page, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a caller should prefer get_page or search_sites instead. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the verb.

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