List Uptime Kuma Status Pages

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful information beyond the annotations by revealing the exact return shape (id/slug/title/published) and restricting the scope to public pages. No contradiction 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 two sentences with no filler: the action is front-loaded and the return fields are stated concisely. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low-complexity optional-parameter list tool, the description provides enough context: the action, the scope, and the absence of an output schema is compensated by listing returned fields. The annotation set covers safety and idempotence.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully described in the schema with a default and enum; schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already carries the meaning.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource ('public status pages'), and it specifies the returned fields (id/slug/title/published). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like uptime_kuma_list_monitors or uptime_kuma_get_status.

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 intended use is clear: call this tool to enumerate public status pages. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the resource is unique among the siblings, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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