List configured Pages sources

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It implies this is a read-only check, but doesn't state the return structure (e.g., list of URLs vs. boolean) or potential side effects. The line 'when the list is empty' hints at a list return, but this is not explicit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes actionable guidance without any redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding when and why to call the tool.

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 simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know when to call it and why. The only gap is the lack of explicit return value details, but the 'list is empty' phrasing partially covers this. Overall, adequate for a check tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers parameter semantics fully. The description correctly focuses on usage context rather than parameter details, which aligns with the baseline for tools with no 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 uses the specific verb 'Checks' with a clear resource ('Pages search targets'), and the context of checking configuration distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_pages_index or configure_pages_source. The title also aligns, reinforcing the purpose.

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 explicit timing guidance ('Call this before authentication or search') and explains the benefit ('so an agent can request a site URL when the list is empty'). However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would make it fully explicit.

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