pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the three actions but does not explain side effects, such as whether 'add' creates a persistent page, whether 'activate' changes the current view, or whether these operations require special permissions.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the primary actions and stays free of filler. Every phrase adds information about the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an enum, and the description covers the main actions. However, it omits any details about return values, error cases, or the effect of 'activate' on the document state, which an agent might need for confident 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful meaning by clarifying that the page can be 'optionally named' for add and that activation is 'by name.' However, it does not specify when name is required or how the list action uses the parameter.

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 names the resource (pages) and specifies three concrete verbs: list, add, and activate. It is unambiguous about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_page_state.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_page_state, export_page_png, or set_page_size. An agent must infer from the action enum which operation is appropriate, with no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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