Pages with editable copy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output content in detail (counts, draft status, AI applied) and mentions the site identity block id 0, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only, non-mutating operation or disclose any other behavioral traits like authentication, performance, or error conditions. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the resource (every page, post, site identity block) and then provide key details (counts, draft status, AI applied) followed by a direct usage instruction. There is no wasted wording.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned (all pages/posts/site identity with metadata) and how to use it (ids with generate/apply/undo). It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly without additional context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.

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 clearly states the tool returns an overview of every page, post, and site identity block with metadata (text item counts, draft status, AI copy applied). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sweipe_brief_generate by explicitly noting how to use its ids with them, making the purpose 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?

The description directly instructs the agent to use the returned ids with sweipe_brief_generate/apply/undo, which is a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over other listing tools (e.g., sweipe_status, wp_list_pages) or mention exclusions, leaving some usage guidance implicit.

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