ghost_get_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('retrieves') but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. It provides a basic overview but not deep transparency.

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 concise sentence of 12 words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose and features like pagination, it is incomplete given the lack of an output schema. It does not explain the response structure (e.g., pagination metadata), leaving the agent without a full picture of what to expect.

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 71%, with 5 out of 7 parameters having descriptions. The description adds general context about pagination, filtering, and sorting but does not elaborate on parameters like limit and page beyond what the schema (with defaults) provides. It offers marginal added value.

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 'Retrieves', the resource 'pages from Ghost CMS', and explicitly mentions features like pagination, filtering, and sorting. This distinguishes it from siblings like ghost_get_page (single page) and ghost_search_pages (search-specific).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghost_get_page or ghost_search_pages. There is no mention of exclusions or specific contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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