list_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the project vs. workspace scoping and mentions pagination parameters (per_page, cursor), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, auth requirements, or potential error conditions, though 'list' implies a read operation.

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 concise and well-structured with a clear opening statement, Args section, and Returns section. It is not overly verbose, but the opening sentence is slightly redundant with the second sentence, which could be merged for even tighter prose.

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 tool's simplicity (list with optional project scope), the description is fairly complete. It covers both parameters, returns description, and distinguishes project vs. workspace behavior. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail Page object fields. Minor gaps like error cases or alternative tools are not addressed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well. It explains that project_id scopes to project pages or workspace pages when omitted, and describes params as an optional dictionary with examples (per_page, cursor). It adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could enumerate more possible query parameters.

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 lists pages and differentiates between project-level and workspace-level pages based on presence of project_id. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, distinguishing it from siblings like list_work_item_pages.

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?

It provides context on when to use the tool (list pages with optional project scope) and explicitly describes the conditional behavior. However, it does not mention alternatives for listing pages attached to work items, such as list_work_item_pages, so there are no exclusions but no explicit alternative guidance.

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