list_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value by enumerating the returned fields and decoding the status values (ceka/pise/hotovo/chyba). However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination or result limits, permission requirements, or whether the listing is scoped to just the caller's own pages — gaps that matter for a list tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: the verb and scope come first, then a definition of the resource, then the returned fields. The inline status glossary is compact and earns its space.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials — what a page is, what fields come back, and what the status codes mean. It stops short of covering ordering, pagination, or permission scoping, which are the remaining unknowns an agent would want.

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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are accepted, though it does not state this explicitly.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (pages) and then defines the resource concretely: single-file HTML artifacts such as presentations, overviews, and small apps. It also scopes the result to the key owner's pages, which an agent can contrast with the single-item get_page sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the key-owner scope; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_page for a single page, or versus list_* siblings for other resources. It gives enough context to pick it for enumeration but leaves routing to inference.

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