List Namespaces Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's main addition is the shape of the result (IDs, names, canonical names) — which the output schema already covers. It says nothing about ordering, whether talk/defunct namespaces are included, or whether the list is cached, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 lines, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the return description is compact. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list with an output schema and a readOnlyHint, almost nothing is left for the description to carry. A brief note on when the namespace list is needed relative to the page-manipulation siblings would make it complete.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly signals that the tool takes no filtering arguments by saying 'all namespaces'.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all namespaces on the wiki', which is unambiguous and distinct from every sibling (list_pages_tool, list_categories_tool, list_files_tool all target different resources). It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, but the resource noun alone is enough to route the agent.

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 call this versus alternatives, nor on what the output is useful for (e.g. resolving namespace IDs before a move_page_tool or edit_page_tool call). The 'all namespaces' scope is stated but is a scope statement, not usage guidance.

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