Get wiki list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the error conditions (MissingParameterError for missing project_id, ParameterError for invalid parameters) and the wrapper-style return containing a list of WikiPage models, which an agent would not otherwise know.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and efficient, but the Args/Returns/Raises docstring is generic boilerplate that consumes most of the text. The "**kwargs" section in particular is noise that does not match the actual schema shape.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition should explain which optional parameters apply to a list operation (e.g., with_content, format_type) and how results are paginated. Instead it documents only project_id and the wrapper return, leaving material gaps for an agent trying to invoke this correctly.

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 has 12 parameters at 0% description coverage, and the description only calls out project_id while hand-waving the rest as "**kwargs". That framing is misleading because the schema exposes discrete named properties (format_type, with_content, render_html, etc.), not free-form kwargs, so the agent gets almost no semantic help for the remaining parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Get a list of wiki pages for a project"), which clearly distinguishes it from the singular gitlab_get_wiki_page and the mutation tools like gitlab_create_wiki_page. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 guidance on when to call this versus gitlab_get_wiki_page, gitlab_create_wiki_page, or the generic api_request. The only usage-adjacent information is that project_id is required, and even that is framed only via the exceptions section.

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