List pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the output fields and implies read-only behavior by using 'list', but it does not explicitly state that it is a read operation, nor does it mention pagination, sorting, or any side effects. It also doesn't address the 'search' and 'per_page' parameters' behavior. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral details undisclosed.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds purpose. It contains no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly longer to cover parameters.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and returned fields, but it omits any explanation of the parameters and does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior. Given the low complexity, these gaps are noticeable but not critical. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves an agent guessing about search and pagination.

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% – the schema has no descriptions for 'search' or 'per_page'. The description does not mention either parameter or clarify what they do. It neither compensates for the schema gap nor adds any semantic meaning beyond the bare type definitions. An agent would not know how to use these parameters effectively.

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 ('pages'), enumerates the returned fields (id, title, slug, link, status), and states the intended purpose ('for picking front pages and checking an import'). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which are unrelated (settings, sweipe operations). No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 for when to use the tool: picking front pages and checking an import. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling list shows no competing list-pages tool, so the purpose statement effectively guides selection. Lacks an explicit exclusion clause, but the context is sufficient.

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