list-status-pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds a useful behavioral nuance by specifying 'public' status pages and limiting to the user's Updown.io account. However, it does not disclose pagination, return format, or any authentication requirements beyond the implicit account scope. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core purpose immediately. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no repetition or filler. It is perfectly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It clearly indicates the tool returns a list of public status pages. The lack of explicit return-type detail (e.g., array of objects) is acceptable for such a straightforward list operation, but the description could have mentioned the read-only nature or the fact that no authentication is needed if the pages are public.

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 coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by defining the implicit filter ('public', 'in your account') that shapes what is returned. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to provide parameter-level detail, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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'), the resource ('public status pages'), and the scope ('in your Updown.io account'). It differentiates from sibling tools like list-checks, list-nodes, and list-recipients by naming the exact resource. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for listing status pages, as opposed to creating, updating, or deleting them. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource specificity makes the usage context obvious. The absence of explicit comparison to list-checks or other list tools is a minor gap.

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