list_live_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'from the running OneNote app,' which implies the app must be active, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the notebook or section doesn't exist, or any rate limits or destructive potential. The description lacks sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 short and includes a clear primary statement followed by a use case, which is good. However, the Args section is redundant because it merely restates parameter names without additional detail. Removing or enriching that section would improve conciseness. The structure is front-loaded but not optimal.

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 that the tool has only two required parameters, no enums, and no nested objects, the description provides the essential purpose and a use case. The presence of an output schema (not shown but signaled) means return values need not be explained. However, it lacks information about error handling, preconditions (e.g., app must be running), or confirmatory details, leaving gaps for a new agent.

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 input schema has zero description coverage (no descriptions for parameters). The description lists the parameters in an Args block but simply repeats their names ('notebook_name: Name of the notebook.'), adding no semantic meaning or formatting details. Since the schema provides no descriptions and the description adds no value, the parameter semantics are weak.

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 action ('List pages in a section'), the resource ('pages in a section'), and the context ('from the running OneNote app'). It also specifies a primary use case ('find page IDs for appending content to existing pages'), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like list_sections or read_section.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool: 'Use this to find page IDs for appending content to existing pages.' While it does not provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, the stated use case implies that for other purposes (e.g., reading page content), alternative tools like read_section or search_notes might be more appropriate.

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