bricks_list_pages

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

Without annotations, the description effectively communicates the default filtering behavior (only Bricks content) and the ability to include all pages. It also mentions pagination totals, which is helpful context. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, though none are expected for a list operation.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that convey all key information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description mentions pagination totals, which is useful. It also covers the main parameters' effects. However, it could be more explicit about the response structure, especially regarding pagination details beyond totals.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior of 'include_all' and specifying that search supports title matching and returns pagination totals, which goes beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs ('List pages') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pages with Bricks content and supporting search. Sibling tools like bricks_get_page_elements are for different purposes, so there is no confusion.

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 that this tool is for listing pages, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives (e.g., for filtered listings). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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