List wiki assets

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 exact return fields (id, filename, ext, kind, mime, fileSize, url) and highlights the URL prefix nuance for non-root folders, which is valuable for agent decision-making. It does not mention error cases or pagination, but for a simple list tool this is acceptable.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. It packs essential details (return fields, URL nuance) without unnecessary words, earning its place.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return values and a key behavioral detail (URL root assumption). It omits potential pagination limits or invalid folder handling, but for a straightforward list tool with two optional parameters, it covers the main needs.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that folderId 0 is the root and that the returned URL assumes the root folder, requiring prefixing for other folders. This enriches the semantics of the folderId parameter.

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 clearly specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('assets in a wiki asset folder'), with additional context that folderId 0 is the root. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like wiki_list_tags and wiki_list_pages by focusing on uploaded files.

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 gives clear usage context: it explains how folderId and kind affect results, and notes the URL behavior for non-root folders. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's unique purpose among the siblings makes when-to-use clear.

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