list-wikis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds behavioral context: the tool reports whether each wiki is currently reachable and which extension-gated tools work on it. This goes beyond merely listing config and helps the agent anticipate dynamic behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('Lists every configured wiki') and packs the essential details into the remaining text. Every clause adds value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the sole source of return-value information. It enumerates the fields an agent can expect (key, sitename, URL, read-only/default, reachability, extension-tool support) and reinforces its purpose. For a zero-argument tool, this is fully adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. The description correctly mentions the wiki key as a return value ('pass as the wiki argument to other tools'), not as a parameter, so no parameter semantics are needed. The no-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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: it lists every configured wiki. It enumerates the exact fields returned (key, sitename, server URL, read-only/default status, reachability, extension-gated tools) and states the tool's purpose: to discover configured wikis and their keys. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add-wiki and remove-wiki.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: use this tool to discover configured wikis, their keys, and which extension tools each supports. It also notes that the wiki key is passed as an argument to other tools, which helps an agent know when to call it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving a minor gap.

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