list_wiki_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them — no note on result ordering, pagination behaviour, or whether the response is truncated at the limit.

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 with no filler, correctly front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is only just adequate. It omits anything about pagination workflow and the relationship to get_wiki_page, which are the main things an agent would need context for.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset and project are all already documented (including the useful "use next_offset of the previous page" hint on offset). The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase "Index of the wiki pages of a project" identifies the resource (wiki pages) and its scope (a single project), but it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a listing/read operation from the tool name alone. It also does nothing to separate it from the sibling get_wiki_page, which retrieves a single 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 at all: no mention of when to prefer this over get_wiki_page, search, or search_issues, and no note about paginating through results. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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