List homepages

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds a note about the pages being 'available to assign to profiles,' but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination or response structure. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action and resource in ten words.

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 tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but omits any mention of filter/pagination parameters or return shape. Since there is no output schema and the parameters are undocumented, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (page, limit, query, mainWebsites). The agent receives no guidance on pagination, searching, or filtering, leaving the parameters semantically opaque.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('startup pages') and clarifies the purpose ('available to assign to profiles'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_statuses or list_proxies, which target different resources.

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 provides clear context: startup pages are used for assignment to profiles, so this tool is appropriate when an agent needs to see available homepages for that purpose. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., create_homepages), so it stops short of a 5.

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