get_wiki_tree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contents (titles, uuids, nesting, no page content), the 404 behavior for unopenable/nonexistent wikis, and the token cost of large wikis. It does not explicitly state read-only or describe the output tree structure in detail, but it covers key behavioral traits sufficiently.

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 four sentences, each earn its place: it states the core output, positions against alternatives, explains the 404 case, and gives performance advice. Front-loaded and free of redundant filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tree contains, when to use it over alternatives, how to follow up with get_wiki_page, error semantics for inaccessible wikis, and scaling guidance for large wikis. An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool based on this description alone.

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 67%, with depth and parent_page_uuid already having descriptions. The description adds meaning by recommending these parameters for narrowing large trees ('narrow it with parent_page_uuid and depth rather than reading all of it'). wiki_uuid lacks a description but is inherently clear from its name and format.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Every page in a wiki as a tree — titles, uuids and nesting — without any page content.' It identifies the specific verb (get), resource (wiki tree), and output scope clearly. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by directly referencing search_wiki and get_wiki_page, making its unique role explicit.

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 guidance: 'This is the cheap way to find a page uuid when you know roughly where it sits; search_wiki is the way when you know roughly what it says.' It also advises when to use depth and parent_page_uuid to avoid reading large trees, which is practical usage direction.

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