List wiki directory (≡ ls)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses sorting order, frontmatter enrichment, `index.md` behavior, recursion/filter semantics, unknown-path handling, the 5,000-entry cap with `truncated: true`, and a clear security warning that content is untrusted. This exceeds typical tool descriptions.

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 dense but mostly purposeful, with the `ls` metaphor front-loaded and key behaviors explained in compact clauses. It repeats the effective-guideline explanation twiceaging and is slightly long, but every section addresses behavior an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return shape (`entries`, `index`, `truncated`), parameter semantics, edge cases, and safety guidance. The sibling context is clear enough, and nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: concrete `path` examples for layers and effective guideline files, the meaning of empty path, glob semantics with `!` and `caseSensitive`, and the depth range. This actively helps an agent choose correct parameter values.

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 identifies the verb and resource: it lists entries of a wiki-root-relative directory, explicitly likened to `ls`. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing directory listing rather than searching (`grep_docs`), reading a single document (`read_doc`), or status checks (`kb_status`).

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 `ls` analogy and extensive examples convey when this tool is appropriate: for browsing wiki structure, recursing with `depth`, and filtering with `glob`. It does not explicitly state 'use read_doc to read a specific file' or list exclusions, but the context strongly implies the boundary between listing and reading; this is a minor gap.

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