wiki_get_tree

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the concept of a 'tree' (hierarchical structure) but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling, pagination, or depth limits. Since annotations handle the main behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and object. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately concise for a simple read tool.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and input. It lacks some context about return structure or edge cases, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema). The description mentions 'under a Wiki slug', which connects the parameter but does not explain what a slug is, its format, or how to obtain it. With one required parameter and no schema descriptions, more explanation is needed.

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 'Get the tree of pages under a Wiki slug' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (tree of pages) and identifies the input scope (Wiki slug). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like wiki_get_page (single page) and wiki_search (search), as it targets the hierarchical page tree.

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 implies when to use this tool—when the tree of pages under a wiki slug is needed—but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like wiki_get_page. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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