Get Pages In Cat Table

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output columns (pageid, ns, title, type) and implies a non-recursive read via 'directly', but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that puts the resource and scope first and the output shape in parentheses. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the column list is valuable compensation and the tool is a simple read, so an agent has most of what it needs. Pagination behavior and the precise distinction from the non-table sibling remain unaddressed.

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 100% – both lang and category are already documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, matching the baseline for full coverage.

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 (get), resource (pages), scope (directly in a category) and output form (table with named columns). It implicitly separates itself from subcategory siblings like get_subcat_table and depth tools, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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 word 'directly' hints that this is non-recursive, which is the main selection axis against get_subcat_with_depth or get_subcat_table, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage must be inferred from the scope word alone.

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