listWikiPages

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond annotations: it does not load every page body, implying it is a lightweight listing operation that returns only titles. This is useful context for an agent deciding between this and heavier alternatives.

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?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place. The first front-loads the core purpose and key limitation (no page bodies), and the second gives actionable routing to alternatives. No redundancy or fluff.

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 listing tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers what it returns (titles), the precondition (known project), and directs to alternatives when appropriate. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter projectId, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no extra semantics about the parameter format or constraints, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 action ('Discover wiki page titles') on a specific resource ('one known project') and adds a key distinguishing detail ('without loading every page body'). It also names the sibling tools that are NOT this one, making the purpose unambiguous even among 30+ siblings.

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 description explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it directs the agent to getWikiPage when a title is already known, and to searchWikiPages when only content terms are known. It also clarifies the precondition 'one known project', which implies projectId is required.

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