Listează paginile și articolele

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result excludes content and lists specific fields, which is useful context. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or limits, which could be relevant for a listing tool. It adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key output details. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 simple two-parameter listing tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It states the resource type, the fields returned, and the lack of content. It does not mention return format (e.g., array) or ordering, but these are minor omissions for a straightforward list. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the field enumeration.

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 must compensate. It mentions 'paginilor și/sau articolelor' (implying the 'tip' parameter) and 'stare (ciorna/publicat)' (implying the 'stare' parameter). While the enums are self-explanatory, the description ties them to the output fields, providing some added meaning. However, it does not explicitly explain the parameters or their defaults, leaving some inference required.

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 pages and/or articles without content, and enumerates the returned fields (slug, title, status, address, date). It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying the resource (pages/articles) and the 'without content' scope. This is a specific verb+resource that 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?

The description implies the purpose and filtering (by type and status) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'cauta' (search) or 'citeste' (read). It also does not mention exclusions, such as when content is needed. Usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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