example_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the weight and discloses the return behavior for each mode: the example list plus style guide without a name, the source (Markdown/SVG) and a preview image with a name. What it omits is failure behavior when a name is unknown and whether names must match exactly.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences: identity, mode split, then the usage instruction. Minimal waste; only the parenthetical 'study Markdown or SVG' is slightly clunky phrasing.

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?

There is no output schema and just one optional parameter, and the description covers both modes and the workflow prerequisite, so an agent can call it correctly. Missing only edge details such as name format or what happens on an unknown name.

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 0% and the only field is a nullable 'name' with no description, so the description must supply the meaning — and it does, explaining that absence yields the list and presence yields source plus preview. That is a real addition beyond the schema's default-null declaration.

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?

States a specific resource (example pages and drawings with source and appearance) and, by naming the tools that should consume it, implicitly distinguishes it from render_page/page_layout siblings. It stops short of saying how it differs from a live library or preview tool, but the purpose is 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?

Explicitly prescribes when to use it: read the matching example before create_notebook, add_pages, clean_copy, or a write_on_page drawing, and follow its structure. It also splits behavior by mode (no name vs. name), so an agent knows both when and how to call it.

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