redmine_list_wiki_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation returns a hierarchical tree with page titles, versions, and last-updated dates, which is the key behavioral output. It implies a read-only operation through the word 'discover.' While it doesn't mention auth or rate limits, these are less critical for a simple 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: two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, the second adds return format and a usage tip. No wasted words, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (hierarchical tree with specific fields), and when to use it. The sibling redmine_get_wiki_page provides clear differentiation without needing explicit exclusions.

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% for the single parameter project_id, which already includes a clear description ('Project identifier (e.g. 'panama', 'largescale') or numeric ID'). The tool description adds little beyond reinforcing that the listing is scoped to a Redmine project, so the baseline 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's purpose: 'List all wiki pages in a Redmine project.' It specifies the resource (wiki pages), the scope (project), and the action (list). It also distinguishes from the sibling redmine_get_wiki_page by emphasizing the hierarchical list and discovery use case.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to discover available documentation before reading specific pages.' This implies when to use (before redmine_get_wiki_page) and gives a clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is strong enough for a simple list tool.

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