LightCMS

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds valuable context: explains the fork domain concept (batch staging) and documents return payload contents (status, page count, creator) despite lack of output schema. Does not mention pagination or side effects beyond 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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states action + domain concept, second documents return values, third provides sibling guidance. Information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

Despite no output schema, description fully compensates by detailing what fields are returned. With zero parameters and simple listing behavior, the description is complete covering purpose, usage guidance, and return value structure.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Per guidelines, 0 params baseline is 4. Description correctly provides no parameter details since none exist.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'content fork workspaces' and distinguishes scope from sibling get_fork by noting this lists 'all' workspaces while get_fork is for 'specific pages'. It also defines what forks are conceptually (staging changes before merging).

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?

Explicitly directs users to sibling tool get_fork with 'Use get_fork to see the specific pages in a fork', clearly indicating when to use the alternative instead of this listing tool.

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