yootheme_lite_list_pages

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The description adds the cap of 'at most ten' and clarifies 'no content export,' which is useful scope context not in the annotations. It doesn't mention authentication requirements or error behavior, so it's adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the key constraints (titles only, max ten, no content). Every part earns its place.

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 a simple two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and key output scope. However, it omits parameter details and any guidance about the site context, leaving gaps for an agent using it without prior knowledge.

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% and the description doesn't explain the site parameter or the limit parameter's meaning beyond the default. The schema only provides types and a default, leaving the description to compensate and it mostly fails to do so.

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 clear verb (list) and specific resource (page/article titles, ids, status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like summarize_layout by clarifying it returns titles only, not content. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from yootheme_lite_list_sites, which requires inference from the site parameter.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It implies a read/list use case but doesn't tell the agent when this is preferable to the sibling tools or what prerequisites (like a valid site) are needed beyond the required parameter.

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