list_pages

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral information beyond what the annotations convey. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, idempotent, or describe any side effects, pagination, or ordering. The bar is lower due to annotations, but the description still fails to add value.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it prioritizes the usage condition over the tool's purpose, which reduces clarity. It is not front-loaded with the core action. Every word should earn its place, but here the sentence sacrifices meaningful description for brevity.

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?

The tool has two optional parameters and an output schema, yet the description only gives a usage condition. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., list of page titles, IDs, or metadata) or how to interpret results. Even with the output schema, the agent lacks context on the tool's purpose and behavior.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (limit and prefix) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention either parameter, their purpose, or how they affect results. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate, but it completely fails to explain parameter semantics.

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 'Discovery only when search does not identify a relevant page' is not a direct statement of what the tool does. It implies listing pages for discovery, but the purpose is not clearly stated as a verb+resource. The name 'list_pages' partly clarifies, but the description adds ambiguity by focusing on the condition rather than the action.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'only when search does not identify a relevant page.' This provides clear context and contrasts with sibling tools like search_docs, establishing a fallback pattern. This is excellent usage guidance.

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