get-wiki-page-list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the important structural behavior that results are limited to one depth level, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or result size, which are relevant for a list tool.

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 short sentences with no wasted words, and the key scope constraint is front-loaded before the parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains scope and parameter behavior. The only notable omission is return or pagination behavior, which would help an agent understand what a list result looks like.

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%, and the schema already explains that wikiId is required and parentPageId should be omitted for root pages. The description reinforces those semantics but adds little beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get wiki pages') and clearly defines the scope as one depth level (siblings), which distinguishes it from the hierarchy-wide get-wiki-page-tree sibling. An agent can select this tool without needing to inspect the 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?

It gives direct usage guidance: use parentPageId for child pages, omit it for root pages. It does not explicitly name get-wiki-page-tree as the alternative for retrieving a full hierarchy, but the depth-level condition makes the intended use clear.

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