redmine_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 burden. It only says 'list,' implying a read operation, but does not disclose pagination, response format, permissions, or whether it returns full content or just titles. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the action and scope.

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 list tool with one parameter, the description is adequate but lacks details about the returned data structure or any edge cases. Since there is no output schema, some information about what the list contains would improve completeness. However, the low complexity keeps it at a baseline 3.

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%, with the parameter project_id described as 'Project ID or identifier.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 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 clearly states the verb+resource+scope: 'List all wiki pages for a project.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_get_wiki_page (single page) and redmine_delete_wiki_page, which have different actions.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when you need all wiki pages for a project. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternatives to choose, such as redmine_get_wiki_page for a single page.

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