ado_wiki_list_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it states the required PAT scope (vso.wiki), describes the automatic resolution of the default project wiki, and explains pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 a tight three-sentence block. It leads with the core purpose, then details pagination and the fallback, and ends with the auth requirement. Every sentence contributes essential information, with no filler or repeated content.

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 read-only listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: response content (paths, URLs, metadata), pagination, the default-wiki auto-resolve, and the auth scope. It does not specify the exact response format, but that is not necessary given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool. It appears complete for an agent to invoke 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 already documents all four parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), including the meaning of wikiId, top, and continuationToken. The description adds only a re-statement of some behavior (e.g., 'use top to limit results' and 'pass the returned continuationToken'), which repeats the schema. It does not introduce new semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 pages') and a clear resource ('pages in an Azure DevOps wiki'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ado_wiki_list (for discovering wikis) and ado_wiki_get_page (for a single page) via context. It is unambiguous which action this tool performs.

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 states when to use this tool (listing pages) and provides guidance for pagination via the continuation token. It also mentions the fallback to ado_wiki_list when auto-resolve of the default wiki fails, which helps route to an alternative. It does not enumerate all 'when not to use' cases, but the primary alternative is covered.

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