getWikiPages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List wiki pages' implies a read operation but gives no details about whether it returns page content or metadata, whether pagination exists, or how projectId affects results. This is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 phrase 'List wiki pages' is extremely short, but under-specification is not conciseness. It lacks necessary details such as scope, parameters, and return behavior, making it minimally useful.

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 tool with one nested parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not convey that projectId is required, what format values mean, or what the response represents, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.

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 0%, and the description does not mention the required pathParams (format, projectId). The schema itself provides basic property names and enum, but the description adds no meaning to help an agent understand parameter purpose or usage.

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 states the verb 'List' and resource 'wiki pages', making it clear this tool retrieves multiple wiki pages. However, it lacks any scope detail (e.g., per project, all pages) and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling getWikiPage, though the plural form hints at the difference.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getWikiPage or getWikiPageByVersion. The description simply states the action without any context about project scoping or format options.

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