list_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention whether the operation is safe, whether results are paginated, what happens if the course does not exist, or any rate limits. It provides the basic behavior but omits important edge-case details.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('List wiki pages in a course') and immediately specifies the return fields. It is concise with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema (exists, though not shown), so the description does not need to detail return structure. However, it omits any mention of pagination, sorting, or error handling, and does not clarify whether the operation is read-only (important given no annotations). For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 defines a single parameter, course_identifier, with type anyOf string/integer, but provides no description. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type constraint. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by explaining what the identifier represents or how to find it, which it does not.

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 states the verb 'list', the resource 'wiki pages', and the scope 'in a course', and specifies the return fields (publish status, last-updated time). It is clear and specific enough to distinguish from list_courses, get_page_content, and create_page, though it does not explicitly name any sibling to set it apart.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid course_identifier), nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., when a single page's content is needed). The usage context is merely implied by the tool's name and purpose.

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