list_wiki_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about pagination, ordering, permissions required, or whether the listing is filtered. It only restates the read operation implied by the tool name, leaving behavioral traits undocumented.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient information density. For a tool with an undocumented parameter and no annotations, more content was warranted.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits basic list-tool context such as pagination or result ordering. Given zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the description is too thin to call the tool correctly with confidence.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but barely does: 'プロジェクトの' only indirectly signals that project_id scopes the result. It adds no format hints, no indication of which project identifier form is expected, and no eligibility constraints.

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 ('Wiki ページ一覧を返す' – returns a list of Wiki pages) and scopes it to a project, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the closely related siblings read_wiki_page, write_wiki_page, and delete_wiki_page.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative Wiki tools, and no stated preconditions (e.g. that the project must exist). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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