content_browse_pages

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, public accessibility, only published pages, exclusion from RSS feeds, and pagination metadata. While it could mention rate limits or authentication, these are reasonably implied by 'read-only, public content' and the Ghost API context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (TIP, USE CASE, NOTE, RETURNS). It is concise, with every sentence adding information. No fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with purpose, making it easy to scan.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output (array with pagination). It explains the tool's scope and limitations. Minor gaps include lack of error handling information or explicit mention of default limit value, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only public endpoint.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the fields parameter usage with examples, mentioning comma-separated for include/formats, noting default limit and order, and describing pagination behavior. This aids correct parameter selection.

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 browses published pages from Ghost Content API, specifying it is read-only and public. It lists specific use cases (static pages, site navigation, sitemap generation) and implicitly differentiates from siblings like content_read_page (single page) and content_browse_posts (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 explicit when-to-use guidance with use cases, a tip for reducing response size, a note that it only returns published public pages (not drafts), and explicitly names an alternative: admin_browse_pages for drafts. This clearly helps the agent decide.

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