get-wiki-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the semantic model (container with home page and tree of pages) and enumerating the returned fields. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which keeps this just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then a labeled 'Wiki vs WikiPage' block and a one-line Returns. Every line carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer from the sibling list; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return shape (wiki ID, name, project, type, scope, home page ID) plus the conceptual model needed to interpret those fields. Nothing required to call this correctly 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% with only two optional paging params, both already documented in the schema. The description adds no paging or ordering detail, so the baseline of 3 applies – nothing is lost, but nothing is gained either.

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 (get list of accessible wikis) and immediately disambiguates the domain object from WikiPage using an analogy (Wiki groups pages like Project groups Tasks). An agent can distinguish this from get-wiki-page-list, get-project-list, and get-wiki-page without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use get-wiki-page-list to get pages within a specific wiki,' which is the single most likely confusion point given the sibling set. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' beyond that one exclusion, but the scope word 'accessible' sets the boundary.

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