list_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is a single unscoped flat array (no tree walking), and it enumerates the returned fields including per-locale status. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the scope and output shape front-loaded before the routing advice. Every clause 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?

For a single-param read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by describing the array shape and its fields (documentId, name, type, parentId, per-locale status). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter ('site') and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it, including the multisite fallback and the 'call list_sites' tip. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb and resource ('List EVERY page you can see in this site') and pins down the output shape as 'one flat array'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the 'tree' sibling, so an agent can choose without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives affirmative conditions ('find a page by name or to pick a parent/reference target') and a named alternative with its own use case ('use tree to see one level in display order'). This is explicit when-to-use plus when-to-use-the-other-tool routing.

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