List Wiki attachments

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: results are auto-paginated and drain next_cursor, and results are capped at the configured item cap unless limit is supplied. That pagination and truncation behavior is exactly the kind of context an agent needs when calling a list 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, how pagination/cap behaves, and where the tool's scope ends. The most important constraint (cap/pagination) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers pagination, cap behavior, and the binary-download boundary. Remaining gaps (error behavior, default sort semantics) are minor and largely carried by the schema.

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 all four parameters (limit, page_id, order_by, order_direction) are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description only reinforces the limit-vs-cap relationship and adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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+resource (list attachments on a page id) and enumerates the returned fields (name, size, mime type). It also draws the boundary against the download/get surface, so an agent can distinguish this tool from the attachment siblings without opening schemas.

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 frames itself as 'the list surface' and tells the agent that retrieving attachment bytes is CLI/SDK-only, which is actionable guidance about what this tool cannot do. It does not, however, name a sibling tool or state a condition for choosing it over e.g. wiki_attachments_get.

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