ado_wiki_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the vso.wiki PAT scope requirement and the empty-result meaning, both of which go beyond annotation information. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence carries essential guidance. There is no fluff or repetition, and the structure is highly efficient.

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, the description covers purpose, return fields, auth scope, and the edge case of empty results. It lacks pagination details, but for a list of wikis that is unlikely to be a concern, so the completeness is adequate.

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 fully describes the sole parameter (project) with a clear description and the omission behavior. The description echoes this but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (list), resource (wikis), and scope (project or organisation). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it is the discovery entry point before using ado_wiki_get_page or ado_wiki_list_pages, so an agent can clearly identify when to use this tool.

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 explicitly says to call this first to discover wikiId values, giving a clear when-to-use directive. It also explains the empty result interpretation, which helps avoid confusion. While it doesn't list explicit exclusions, the context is unambiguous.

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