list_pages

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint by specifying what is returned (titles, content, metadata, project relationships) and gives practical examples. It does not mention potential side effects, but since it's read-only, that is not an issue. The return format is disclosed, adding value.

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: a one-line summary, usage guidance, context, and examples. Each sentence serves a purpose without fluff. The examples are compact and illustrate key filter combinations. It is concise yet comprehensive.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, one nested object) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, return types, and usage examples. It does not explain error scenarios or limits, but those are not typically required. The description is complete enough for effective tool selection.

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 input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description enhances this with concrete usage examples for extra_filters (parent_page_id and root_page_id), which clarifies how to combine parameters effectively, providing added value beyond the schema.

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 lists pages/documents with filters, and distinguishes it from siblings like get_page (for single page) and quick_search (presumably broader search). It also explicitly mentions discovering subpages/subfolders, which is a distinct capability.

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?

It provides explicit 'Use this when' guidance, including browsing by project/creator and retrieving metadata without full content. It also mentions using it for subpage discovery. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., quick_search) for contrast, which would make it stronger.

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