ghost_list_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' without explicitly stating it is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The minimal wording leaves important behavioral traits to inference, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 verb and resource, followed by relevant examples in parentheses. It contains no redundant words and is efficiently structured, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 list tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not mention return format, pagination defaults, or filter syntax — though the schema covers defaults. It adequately identifies the resource but leaves room for more completeness, such as noting that results are paginated or that filter uses NQL.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (page, limit, filter) already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it only provides examples of the resource type. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.

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 lists static pages in Ghost CMS, with examples (About, Contact) that distinguish it from posts. The verb 'List' and resource 'static pages' are specific and unambiguous, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like ghost_list_posts.

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 context that it handles static pages (as opposed to posts), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks direct guidance such as 'use ghost_list_posts for regular posts' or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing between similar list tools.

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