Sayfaları listele

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully describe the safety profile. The description adds that it lists pages in the 'active theme', which is a useful context about scope. It doesn't detail behavior like pagination or sorting, but with annotations covering the read-only and non-destructive nature, this is sufficient.

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 packs all essential information: what it does, the scope (active theme), and what fields are returned. No fluff, no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'listes' and the resource 'pages'.

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?

Given that this is a simple list operation with only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, the scope, and the return fields (id, slug, title, status, dates). The lack of explicit return format (array vs. object) is a minor gap, but for a list tool without a complex output schema, this is acceptable. It doesn't mention filtering by status, but that's a feature not promised.

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% for the single optional parameter (includeTemplates). The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema says ('include template pages (read-only)'). Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds no extra value here.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'list pages in the active theme' with specific fields (id, slug, title, status: draft/published/changed, dates). The verb 'listes' (Turkish for 'list') clearly indicates a read-only operation, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_page', 'update_page', 'delete_page', and 'get_page'.

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 makes clear the context: it lists pages in the active theme, which is a distinct context from 'get_site_context' or 'list_components'. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context of listing all pages vs. getting a specific page is implied. A slight gap is the lack of mention that this tool is the right choice for overview tasks vs. 'get_page' for details.

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