list_status_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the API key requirement and the nuance that the public URL is only present for public pages. It also reveals that each status page includes its monitors, which helps an agent anticipate the response shape.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: auth requirement, list action with fields, and conceptual context with a concrete follow-up usage. It is front-loaded with the essential requirement and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool is a simple zero-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers auth, the exact fields returned, the meaning of a status page, and its role before update_status_page. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 is empty with 100% schema description coverage and zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4. No parameter-related gaps exist.

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 what the tool does: it lists the project's status pages and enumerates the returned fields (id, slug, title, monitors, visibility, public URL). It also defines a status page, distinguishing it from the related monitor tools. This is a clear verb+resource+scope statement.

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 gives a specific usage context: it is the read you need before calling update_status_page because check_ids replace the monitor set. It also states the required auth level (API key with read scope or higher), giving the agent an explicit precondition. No alternative list tool exists among siblings, so the when-to-use guidance is sufficient.

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