list_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds value by specifying the return format (flat metadata with fields) and the guidance to reconstruct the tree via parentId. It does not mention potential pagination or exclusion of trashed pages, but these are minor gaps given the openWorldHint suggests a potentially large output.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the primary action and essential details. It avoids unnecessary words and effectively conveys the purpose and usage hint.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the description adequately explains the return structure and usage. It could explicitly state that it lists only non-trashed pages (given list_trashed_pages exists) and mention if there are any limits, but these are minor gaps that do not hinder correct invocation.

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% for the single parameter, and the schema description already provides the source of the collectiveId. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 Collective' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies the return fields. It distinguishes from get_page (single page) and search (search-based) by focusing on the full listing. The addition of 'Use parentId to reconstruct the tree' clarifies the flat nature of the output, making it distinct from tree-structured alternatives.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool (to list all pages) and provides a hint on how to use the returned parentId. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_page for single-page retrieval or list_trashed_pages for trashed pages. The existence of sibling tools implies these exclusions, but they are not stated.

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