taiga_list_wiki_pages

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the returned fields (slug, title), which is useful, but says nothing about pagination or result limits, ordering, whether archived pages are included, or the read-only nature of the call.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than being a virtue in itself.

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 list tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: what is listed, the scope, and the returned fields. Missing pagination/completeness details and project_id provenance leave it only marginally adequate.

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 0% for the single required integer project_id. The phrase 'in a project' implies the parameter identifies the project, but the description never states the ID format or that it comes from taiga_list_projects, so it only partially compensates.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all wiki pages') scoped to a project, and even names the returned fields (slug and title). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling taiga_get_wiki_page for single-page retrieval, which keeps it from a 5.

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 only an implied usage: it lists pages, so use it when you need a listing. Nothing says when to prefer this over taiga_search or taiga_get_wiki_page, nor are any prerequisites for the project stated.

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