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 only says 'lists all pages', which implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state that it is safe, that it returns a large dataset, or that it has any pagination or side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious verb 'list', which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, direct sentence that front-loads the purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing operation. However, it might benefit from a brief mention of the optional parameters or alternatives, but this is a minor point given the excellent brevity.

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 two optional parameters, no annotations, and several sibling functions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the 'limit' or 'include_journals' parameters affect the result, nor does it clarify that the output may differ from other page-listing tools (e.g., namespace-specific listings). An agent presented with this description alone would not know whether to choose this over find_pages_by_property or get_pages_from_namespace, making it insufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 covers both parameters (limit and include_journals) with clear descriptions and defaults, reaching 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents them thoroughly, a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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 verb 'lists' and the resource 'all pages in a LogSeq graph', making the core purpose understandable. It implicitly distinguishes itself from content retrieval tools like get_page_content and property-based search like find_pages_by_property, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The scope is clear, and the description is unambiguous, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention that other tools exist for filtered or property-based page lookup (e.g., find_pages_by_property, get_pages_from_namespace) nor does it explain the trade-offs. With 17 sibling tools, the lack of any usage context leaves the agent to guess when this broad listing is appropriate.

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