List wiki pages

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the server-side vs client-side filtering split, the page-of-results limitation, and the return shape ({ pages, count }). The warning that a page may be outside the first `limit` rows is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance needed.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states purpose and typical scenarios; the second covers the critical filtering behavior and return shape. Every word earns 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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return value ({ pages, count }), explains the key filtering semantics, and flags the limit-related pitfall. It is complete given the tool's complexity and rich schema.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and baseline is 3, the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: it explains that `pathPrefix` filters the fetched page only, not the whole wiki, and that tags are applied server-side before the limit. This elevates parameter understanding significantly.

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 states the tool lists/enumerates wiki pages and distinguishes it from search: 'without a search query' with concrete use cases ('what's under projects/?' or 'what's tagged runbook?'). The verb '+resource' specificity combined with sibling differentiation earns a 5.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use this tool ('without a search query') and gives real-world examples. It also provides operational guidance about pathPrefix being a client-side filter over only the fetched page, with an explicit caveat to raise limit or sort by PATH before concluding a prefix is empty. This is clear context with implied exclusions from search tools.

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