list_wiki_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral content by disclosing that the corpus includes generated category pages and virtual entity pages. It says nothing, however, about pagination behavior despite the limit/offset parameters.

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 tight sentence with no filler; the scope statement leads and the qualifier follows. Efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.

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 four-parameter listing tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits the filtering, paging, and result-shape information an agent needs. Annotations cover safety, but the calling contract is largely unexplained.

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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters (kind, limit, offset, category), so the description bears the full burden and does not meet it. Only a faint gesture toward "category membership" appears; the meaning, accepted values, and defaults of kind, limit, and offset are never addressed.

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?

"Browse the complete corpus" gives a verb and a scope, and the addition of "Jekyll-generated category membership and virtual entity pages" hints at what content is included. But it never says this returns a list of wiki pages, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_wiki, wiki_categories, or read_wiki_page.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call list_wiki_pages or search_wiki for a given information need; the implicit "complete corpus vs. search" contrast is left to inference.

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