List Wiki page descendants

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful behavior: results are auto-paginated and implicitly capped at the configured item cap unless limit is passed. It does not state ordering or what a 'ref' contains, but the pagination/cap detail is genuine added value.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action and scope are front-loaded before the cap/pagination caveat and the narrowing tip.

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 read-only, single-resource list tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, scoping, and pagination behavior. It omits result ordering and any hint about the descendant ref shape, which is a minor gap since no output schema exists.

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 slug, limit, show_all, actuality, and include_self are already documented. The description reinforces the limit/default-cap relationship but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: list all descendant refs under a given wiki page SLUG. The slug-based addressing implicitly separates it from the sibling wiki_pages_descendants_list_by_id, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Offers real operational guidance ('narrow by SLUG for large trees') and explains the cap/limit interaction, but gives no explicit when-to-use rule relative to wiki_pages_descendants_list_by_id, wiki_pages_backlinks_list, or wiki_pages_get. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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