Wiki List All Pages

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load. It does disclose the alphabetical ordering behavior, which is real context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about pagination, whether 'limit' truncates the total set, or read-only safety, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action, ordering, and filter are all conveyed economically.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented. For a simple enumeration tool the description is nearly sufficient, with only usage routing against sibling search tools 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 both parameters are already fully documented with defaults and an example. The description's mention of the prefix filter adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the correct baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (wiki pages) plus ordering semantics ('alphabetically'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling wiki_search, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools such as wiki_search for filtered/full-text lookups. The phrase 'optionally filtered by prefix' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when this tool beats a search.

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