list_pages

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list' without revealing whether the result is paginated, what fields each page object contains, whether it returns full content, or how course scoping behaves. The description adds no meaningful behavioral traits beyond the literal meaning of the name.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and contains no fluff. It is concise, though arguably could expand slightly to include output or usage context. Still, 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 simple list operation with three well-documented parameters, the description is minimally viable: it identifies the resource and scope. However, with no output schema or annotation, it does not describe the return shape, pagination behavior, or any additional course requirements. The lack of return information is a notable gap for an agent consuming the result.

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 100% — every parameter (sort, per_page, course_id) has a description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, but the high schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description does provide the context that pages are listed per course, which complements course_id slightly.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('wiki pages'), and a scope ('in a course'). The plural 'pages' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page, and the verb 'list' separates it from create_page/update_page. No ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus get_page or other list tools. The description only states what it does, not when an agent should choose it over alternatives or any conditions/exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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