wiki_list_nodes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core listing behavior and the null-parent case, but it omits details such as pagination behavior, whether only direct children are returned, and the return format. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 a single concise sentence (or two clauses) that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key usage nuance. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about the return value and any pagination behavior. It covers the basic operation but leaves gaps such as what the returned nodes include and whether pagination is automatic or manual, making it adequate but not fully complete.

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 100% as all four parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, except for clarifying the parent_node_token behavior, which is already documented in the schema. Thus the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool lists child nodes under a specified parent node in the knowledge base, with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('child nodes'). It also specifies the behavior when parent_node_token is omitted, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like wiki_get_node or wiki_list_spaces.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to list child nodes) and gives a specific usage note about omitting parent_node_token to get top-level nodes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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