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 behavioral burden. 'List' implies read-only, but nothing is said about whether subpages are included, whether paging occurs, permission requirements, or limits — all material for a hierarchy-walking tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of guidance rather than being a flaw in structure.

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 listing tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: whether the result is flat or hierarchical, whether it is paginated, and what a page entry contains. The agent knows only the one-line intent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents wikiId, projectId, and organizationId, including defaults. The description adds no meaning about how these scope the listing, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('List pages within an Azure DevOps wiki'), which is clearly distinct from 'get_wiki_page' content retrieval or 'search_wiki'. However, it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 alternatives named. An agent must guess whether this is the right entry point versus get_wiki_page, get_wikis, or search_wiki, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a wikiId from get_wikis first) are mentioned.

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