list_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only restates the purpose and optional change request scope, but does not mention pagination behavior, sorting, whether the result includes nested pages, or the read-only nature of the operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 sentence that is immediately informative and contains no unnecessary words. It effectively front-loads the core purpose and the optional change request scope, making it very easy to parse.

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 accepts four parameters, can operate on a space or change request, and has no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits details about pagination, return structure, how changeRequestId alters behavior, and whether all pages are included or only top-level ones. An agent would need to infer too much from the schema alone.

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 already provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the concept of 'space' and 'change request' but does not explain how changeRequestId interacts with spaceId or how pagination parameters work beyond what the schema states. No additional parameter-level semantics are provided.

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 'List all pages in a GitBook space (or change request)' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pages'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling page-level tools like get_page_by_id and get_page_by_path by indicating it returns multiple pages. The mention of 'space' and 'change request' narrows the scope.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving all pages in a space or change request, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_page_by_id or get_page_by_path. No exclusions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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