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 the useful note that results include size, type and last change, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the scope qualifier and returned fields appended without waste. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so partially (size, type, last change), but omits pagination, ordering and empty-result behavior. For a two-param read-only listing tool with annotation coverage, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 50%: the 'workspace' param is documented in the schema, but 'folder' has no schema description. The description's 'or one folder's' hints that folder scopes the listing, but it never states that an empty folder means the whole wiki, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List the wiki's uploaded files') with scope clarified ('or one folder's') and return fields named (size, type, last change). It clearly distinguishes the file listing from the sibling list_pages, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 implies usage through the 'or one folder's' phrasing, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never mentions alternatives such as search_pages or list_pages for navigating the wiki. The agent must infer when this tool beats its siblings.

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