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. It does well by describing the return format ('Returns page metadata and first 5 lines of content'), pagination capability (implied through 'skip' parameter), and default project behavior. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions that would be helpful for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable information about usage, return values, sorting options, and sibling differentiation. There's minimal redundancy, though the sorting methods list could be slightly more concise.

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 provides good contextual completeness by explaining what's returned, how to use it versus alternatives, and default behaviors. It covers the essential aspects an agent needs, though additional details about response format structure or error handling would make it more 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by listing all sorting methods and explaining the default project behavior, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('browse and list pages') and resource ('from Scrapbox project on cosense'), distinguishing it from sibling tools by explicitly contrasting with search_pages. It provides concrete details about what the tool does, including the scope of returned data (page metadata and first 5 lines of content).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to discover pages by recency, popularity, or alphabetically') and when not to use it ('Different from search_pages which finds content by keywords'), providing clear alternatives. It also includes practical guidance about default project behavior, making it easy for an agent to choose between this tool and its sibling.

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