list-wikis

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by stating what information is returned (reachability, extension-gated tool support), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description completely explains the output fields and usage purpose. No output schema is provided, but the description explicitly lists the returned fields, which is sufficient.

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 has no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not add parameter semantics, but none are needed. Baseline 3 applies as per high coverage rule.

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 every configured wiki with specific details like key, sitename, server URL, read-only status, default status, reachability, and extension-gated tool support. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only list/discovery tool, while siblings like add-wiki or remove-wiki perform mutations.

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 'Use to discover the configured wikis, their keys, and which extension tools each supports.' This provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the purpose is straightforward and well-defined.

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