list_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing exactly which fields are returned and how filtering/pagination work, filling a gap because there is no output schema. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but that is minor given the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concrete usage examples and a one-line note on filtering/pagination. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned, why to use it, and how to filter/paginate. Annotations handle safety, and the schema covers all parameters, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents limit, space, offset, and status, including defaults and meaning. The description only briefly restates that filtering is by Space or status and pagination via limit/offset, adding no syntax or detail beyond the schema. This matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb (List), resource (wiki pages), and enumerates the returned fields (ids, titles, summaries, Space, status, last-modified). It explicitly distinguishes this from read_page by positioning itself as the tool to find the page id that read_page needs.

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?

It gives clear usage contexts: 'browse what the wiki already covers before writing a page' and 'find the page id read_page needs.' It also notes filtering and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for reading content) beyond the implicit contrast with read_page.

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