list_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It does mention the required permission and the return type (a dictionary), which is helpful. However, it does not discuss pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when the user lacks permission (e.g., error handling). The description also states it lists 'all' pages but does not clarify if pagination is handled or not.

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 concise, with each sentence serving a purpose: the main action, permission note, parameter explanation, and return type. It is not overly verbose. The structure is logical (purpose, permission, args, return). Minor issue: the Args section could be more compact, but overall it's efficient.

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?

The tool has a relatively simple output (a dict) and the input schema is minimal. The description covers permissions and basic parameters. However, it lacks details on pagination or error handling, which might be necessary for a complete call. Since there is an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail the return structure fully. The description is adequate but has gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions in the properties), but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'fields' lists the available field names and provides a default set, and 'limit' is described as 'Maximum number of pages to return.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only gives names and types.

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 purpose: 'List all Facebook Pages the authenticated user manages.' It identifies a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Facebook Pages'), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_page_insights or get_page_posts, but the purpose is distinct enough given the focus on managed Pages.

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 mentions the required permission 'pages_show_list' and the scope (Pages the user manages), which provides clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list shows many other tools, so the guidance is adequate for most cases.

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