get-wiki-page-tree

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that each level costs one API call per page and that the walk truncates at 500 pages with truncated=true. Those are non-obvious cost and failure traits an agent needs before choosing a depth.

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 core purpose, then sibling disambiguation, then cost constraints, then examples. Every sentence carries distinct information; 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape (nested {id, subject, children}) and the truncation signal, which is exactly what is missing from structured data. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by demonstrating how depth and parentPageId combine ('Under a page, 2 levels') and implicitly confirming the default depth of 3 via the first example, plus tying depth to API cost.

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 the wiki page hierarchy as a tree') and immediately contrasts it with the sibling get-wiki-page-list, noting that tool returns only one level. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either 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 names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('get-wiki-page-list returns only one level. This tool walks down the levels'). Adds cost guidance ('keep depth small for large wikis') and two concrete invocation examples covering the default and the scoped/depth variants.

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