List wiki pages

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the tool operates on 'indexed' pages and explicitly names the fields returned. It does not mention ordering, pagination defaults, or recursion behavior, but read-only annotations lower the burden.

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?

A single well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists output fields and filters. 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 read-only list tool with seven parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the main filtering dimensions. It could improve by stating pagination or recursion behavior, but the schema covers those details, and the description does not leave a confusing gap for basic invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is only 43%, so the description needs to compensate. It names the folder, type, status, and tag filters, matching most user-facing filter parameters, but it does not explain limit, offset, or recursive. The schema already documents some of these, but the description adds no extra meaning for pagination or recursive traversal.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('indexed wiki pages'), and enumerates output fields (path, id, title, summary, type, status, tags, updated date). The word 'indexed' helps distinguish this from raw list tools and the filter sets give a clear identity.

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 implies usage for listing and filtering indexed pages by folder, type, status, and tag, but it never says when not to use it or names alternatives such as wiki_search or raw_list. A clear exclusion or comparison with wiki_search would have raised this.

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