List page sections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the procedural hint about ordering relative to get_page; it says nothing about pagination behavior despite the cursor parameter, or about the size/shape of a section list.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the sequencing relative to get_page. 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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs to select and call it. The only gap is a brief note on pagination/large pages, which the cursor parameter hints at but the description never mentions.

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 100%, so both 'title' and 'cursor' are already documented in the schema, including that cursor continues a long list. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (list), resource (an OSRS Wiki page's sections), and names the related sibling get_page, so an agent can tell it apart from the page-reading tool. It stops short of a fully self-contained scope statement but the intent 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?

It specifies a workflow condition: use this before reading a page with get_page. That gives clear context for selection, but it offers no exclusions or guidance on when listing sections is unnecessary (e.g. when the page is known to be small).

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