list_wiki_pages_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the basic purpose. It does not mention pagination behavior, the effect of with_content, or the read-only nature, though these are partially implied by the schema. No extra behavioral context is provided.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, stating the verb and object immediately.

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 has a simple list operation with an output schema and fully described parameters. However, the description lacks usage context, such as when to choose this over get_wiki_page_tool or how pagination works beyond schema defaults. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps that the schema and siblings partially fill.

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 schema documents all four parameters with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 the action (list) and resource (wiki pages) scoped to a GitLab project, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wiki_page_tool and create_wiki_page_tool. It does not mention optional behaviors like including content, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explicitly mention that get_wiki_page_tool should be used for a single page or that this is for enumeration. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and siblings.

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