list_wikis

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses important behaviors: guest keys see nothing (empty list is not proof of no wiki), archiving removes wikis from the list, and the `archived: true` flag is the only way to get archived wiki UUIDs. This goes well beyond a basic description and proactively warns about hidden edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and each additional sentence provides necessary context (guest behavior, archiving, restore). It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: entry-point workflow, guest edge case, archived-wiki behavior, and relationship to `restore_wiki`. It is a self-contained guide for correct invocation.

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% (only `archived` has a description). The description adds meaning for `workspace_uuid` (required, start from `list_workspaces`) and enriches the `archived` behavior (mutually exclusive lists, only way to find archived UUIDs). This compensates for the missing schema description effectively.

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?

Clearly states it lists wikis in a workspace with their UUIDs, and distinguishes itself as the only source of `wiki_uuid`, making it the entry point for all other wiki tools. This is a specific verb+resource with explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

Provides clear context: `workspace_uuid` is required and can be obtained from `list_workspaces`. It also explains the `archived` parameter and how it relates to `restore_wiki`. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over specific alternatives, though the entry-point role is strongly implied.

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