wiki_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (title, method_count, DLC versions) and what it does not return (full content). It also notes the optional filtering behavior. This is substantial transparency for a read-only list tool.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and includes only essential details about the return value. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what is returned and what is omitted. It does not mention pagination or limits, but that is not critical for a straightforward list endpoint. The metadata fields are enumerated, which adds clarity.

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 already covers the only parameter 'category' with a description and enum values. The tool description adds 'optionally filtered' and lists the enum values, but this mostly repeats schema info. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add much, and any addition is marginal.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('wiki pages'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by stating it returns metadata for all pages, not full content. This differentiates it from wiki_read (reading a specific page) and wiki_search (searching).

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 when you need a list of wiki pages with metadata, optionally filtered by category. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The sibling tools exist but no exclusions are stated.

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