wiki_list_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and subdirectory choices, but does not disclose ordering, whether it returns full page content or just metadata, rate limits, or any side effects. The description gives only minimal behavioral context beyond the bare listing operation.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose statement. The Args block is a compact, standard format that efficiently covers all parameters. It could be slightly more structured, but it contains no waste and is 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?

An output schema exists, which lightens the burden of explaining return values. However, the description still lacks details on pagination behavior (e.g., whether offset is zero-based, how total count is conveyed), error handling, or whether the listing is alphabetical or by some other order. For a tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap, but the output schema and simplicity of the operation keep it from being severely incomplete.

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 schema has zero descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: subdir ('wiki' or 'raw'), limit (default 50, max 200), offset (pagination), and tag (filter). This adds meaningful semantics that the schema lacks, making parameter usage clear.

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 and resource: 'List all markdown pages in the wiki vault with pagination.' This clearly conveys the core operation and scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like wiki_search or wiki_read_page, though the verb 'list' and pagination hint at distinctiveness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where wiki_search would be more appropriate, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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