redmine_list_wiki_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'list' without disclosing read-only nature, pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. The [Alpha] tag hints instability but is not elaborated.

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 very concise (one sentence) but lacks structure such as parameter explanations, return value description, or usage examples. It is adequately short but at the expense of completeness.

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?

Given no output schema and minimal parameter description, the description is incomplete for an AI agent. It omits key context like what data is returned, pagination handling, and error conditions. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the lack of detail.

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?

The single parameter project_id has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description does not explain its format, type, or constraints. The agent gains no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists all wiki pages in a Redmine project, distinguishing it from siblings like redmine_get_wiki_page (single page) and redmine_delete_wiki_page. However, it lacks details on scope, such as whether it returns only top-level pages or nested ones.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like redmine_list_issues or redmine_search. The description does not mention prerequisites or context for use.

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