List wikis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does reveal account-scoped visibility and environment dependency (XWIKI_WIKI plus restart), which is useful. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, or explicitly confirm there are no side effects, leaving some behavioral details undisclosed.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the environment-specific guidance is placed after the main definition, making it easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description covers the key context: account visibility, multi-wiki applicability, and configuration guidance. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explicitly state the return format (e.g., array of wiki names/IDs), which would round out the context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the inputs. The description adds value by mentioning the XWIKI_WIKI environment variable as a way to change which wiki is targeted, even though it is not a formal tool parameter. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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'), the resource ('wikis'), and the scope ('this account can see'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools that operate on pages or spaces, so an agent can tell what list_wikis is for without ambiguity.

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 context by saying it is 'Only relevant on a multi-wiki farm' and explains what to do if the desired wiki is not the configured one. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that no exclusion is strictly necessary.

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