list_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only listing ('List all pages') and specifies the kind of data returned. While it doesn't mention pagination or response format, the tool's simplicity mitigates the omission, and the described behavior is clear and consistent.

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 zero filler. The first sentence states purpose and output; the second provides a usage hint. It's front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool without an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it returns, why to use it, and when in the workflow. Minor gaps like response shape or edge cases are not critical for selection and invocation, making it nearly complete.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (projectId) with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameter, but none is needed given the schema's completeness. Baseline 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 the tool lists all pages in a FlutterFlow project, with specific output details (human-readable names, scaffold IDs, folder assignments). The verb 'List' and resource 'all pages' are specific, and the mention 'Use this FIRST' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_by_name and get_project_yaml.

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 using this tool first to discover pages before fetching their YAML, giving a clear workflow context. It stops short of naming alternative tools or providing when-not-to-use cases, but the instruction is actionable and implies the tool's role in the overall process.

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