List pages

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

readOnlyHint=true already communicates the safety profile. The description adds active-document default behavior and what fields are returned, but does not discuss error behavior, pagination, or performance. This is acceptable given the read-only annotation, but not exceptional.

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 one clear sentence plus an Args block. The purpose is front-loaded and useful details are present with no filler.

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-parameter read-only list operation with an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the parameter semantics and the type of information returned, leaving little ambiguity for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the only source of semantics for the 'document' parameter. The Args section explicitly describes file name or 1-based index and the active-document default, fully compensating for 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 a specific action ('List the pages'), the resource (pages of a document), and the return content (size in inches and shape counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like visio_list_documents, visio_list_shapes, and rendering/export tools.

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 gives practical context by explaining how to specify the document (file name or 1-based index and active document when omitted). It does not explicitly compare with or exclude sibling tools, but the context is clear enough for choosing it to list page information.

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