wiki_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool lists notes, but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits like idempotency, error handling (e.g., invalid prefix), or whether listing is recursive.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the purpose front-loaded. Every word serves a purpose; no wasted text.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema (not shown). However, additional context about file types, recursion depth, or behavior on missing directories would improve completeness. Adequate for a basic listing tool.

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?

The description explains the 'prefix' parameter as 'vault root 기준 디렉토리' (directory relative to vault root) with default 'papers', adding meaning beyond the schema's basic type definition. Schema coverage is 0%, so this clarification is valuable.

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 it lists notes in a vault directory, using 'vault 안 디렉토리의 노트 목록' and gives examples (papers/topics/digests). It distinguishes from siblings like wiki_read_note and wiki_write_note, though not from search_papers explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of listing notes in a directory with a given prefix. No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives or when-not-to-use is provided.

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