list_pages

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is cheap, behavior changes with source size (descriptions vs paths only), and explains the cost reason. No contradictions with 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening, detailed behavior explanation, param usage, and source enumeration. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter without losing 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context about return modes (small vs large). It covers both parameters and lists sources. Sibling tools are separate, but the tool's purpose is complete for its scope.

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 50%, but the description adds meaning to the undocumented prefix parameter: 'Pass prefix to narrow it and get the descriptions back.' It also lists its values. For source, it repeats the enum but adds context. This compensates well for schema gaps.

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 tool's purpose: 'List a source's pages', specifying both verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_sources (different resource) and search/read tools, and adds behavior details (cheap map) that separate it from more expensive operations.

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 explains when to use the tool ('cheap map of what exists') and describes behavior for small vs large sources, implying it's for quick overviews. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with siblings, but the context is clear.

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