list_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns metadata but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), pagination or rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with large graphs. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 extremely concise - just two short sentences that efficiently communicate the core functionality and return values. Every word earns its place with no redundant information. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single optional parameter) and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it should ideally provide more context about the return format structure, pagination, or limitations. The description covers the 'what' but leaves gaps in the 'how' and constraints.

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%, with the single parameter 'folder' fully documented in the schema with enum values and description. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 action ('목록 조회' - list retrieval) and resource ('Graph 내 모든 페이지' - all pages in the graph), and specifies the returned metadata fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_pages' (filtered search) and 'read_page' (single page content) by emphasizing comprehensive listing of all pages with metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_graph' which might also provide page information.

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 usage when needing a complete list of pages with metadata rather than filtered results (contrasting with 'search_pages') or single-page operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_graph' or provide any exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.

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