List Wiki page resources

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: auto-pagination that drains `next_cursor` internally, and a configured item cap that is overridden by `limit`. It stops short of describing error/edge behavior, but the added pagination and cap semantics are substantive.

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 tightly packed sentences with the return shape and the sibling relationship front-loaded, then the cap/limit caveat. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, auto-paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers return envelope, pagination, cap behavior, and filtering. Sorting (`order_by`/`order_direction`) is left entirely to the schema, but the essential operational facts are present.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the `q` (title) and `types` (`attachment,grid`) semantics that the schema already documents, and only marginally extends `limit` by explaining its interaction with the configured cap. It does not add syntax 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 and resource (lists a wiki page's attachments AND grids) and immediately differentiates itself from the two siblings it subsumes. An agent can tell exactly what it returns — `{type, item}` envelopes — without opening the schema.

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 names the alternatives (`attachments_list` and `pages_grids_list`) and states the condition that selects this tool: it is the unified single-pass listing over what they expose separately. It also gives narrowing conditions (`q`, `types`), so when-to-use and when-to-prefer-a-sibling are both covered.

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