List Pages with Label

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context like 'Narrow results to a specific space' and 'Pagination cursor,' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination limits, or any potential anomalies. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise: a single sentence followed by an Args list. Each line earns its place, though parameter names repeat schema titles. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only list tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter meanings. However, it omits behavioral details like response shape, pagination defaults, or the meaning of openWorldHint. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that has no other context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description's Args list must carry the parameter meaning. It provides brief explanations for all six parameters, with some being helpful (space_id, body_format, cursor, limit) and others tautological (label_id). It adds value beyond the bare schema titles but lacks detail on allowed values or formats.

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's function: 'List all pages that carry a specific label.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the label focus distinguishes it from generic page-listing tools. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or contrast itself with them, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: use this tool when you have a label_id and want pages with that label. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like list_pages or list_blogposts_with_label, nor any exclusion criteria. This is adequate but not explicit.

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