List Pages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details: pagination via cursor, filtering by status values (current, archived, trashed, deleted), and sort options. It does not disclose potential rate limits or default ordering, but the annotations reduce the burden.

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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, followed by a structured Args block. The parameter explanations are brief but informative. Slightly verbose due to the list of all seven parameters, but each earns its place given the lack of schema descriptions.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a read-only list operation: filters, pagination, and sort. However, there is no output schema and the return structure is not described (e.g., whether results include page metadata, total count). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of pagination info, it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: space_id, title (exact match), status (list of values), ancestor_id, sort (with examples), limit (range 1–250), and cursor ('from a previous response'). This goes well beyond the schema's bare field names.

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 'List pages, optionally filtered by space, title, status, or parent' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (pages) and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pages_in_space by indicating it can filter across spaces. The parameter list further clarifies scope.

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?

It provides clear context on what the tool does and the available filters, implying when it would be used (general page listing with optional filters). However, it does not explicitly contrast alternatives like list_pages_in_space or list_pages_with_label, nor does it state when NOT to use it.

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