list_pages

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds substantive behavior beyond them: no pagination or result limit, [] semantics for an empty wiki, exclusion of bodies/sources/notes, and the fact that it is a local read with no model call or writes.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then scope, then exclusions, then routing guidance, then a caution. It is information-dense and every clause carries meaning, though the middle section is packed enough that a bulleted split would read more cleanly.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract, and it does so fully: JSON array in text, {slug, title} fields, sort order, and empty-result representation. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this ('No parameters, pagination, or result limit'), which is helpful context for an agent that might otherwise assume filtering options exist.

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 and resource ('Browse the complete wiki catalog') plus the exact return shape ({slug, title}, sorted by slug). An agent can immediately distinguish this from search, read_page, and neighbors.

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?

Explicitly names the conditions and alternatives: use this for available wiki names, prefer search for a topic, neighbors for links from a known page, read_page for one body. It also adds a negative instruction ('Do not follow the listing by bulk-reading pages'), which is rare and valuable.

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