list_wikis

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and reinforces the safety profile by stating it is read-only coverage only. It adds real context beyond the annotations by disclosing the server's capability boundary (no page read/edit), which an agent would not otherwise know. Return shape is covered by the output schema, so that omission is minor.

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 the core purpose front-loaded and the capability caveat following. The wording 'read-only coverage only' is slightly redundant, but nothing substantial is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies what structured fields can't: the scope of the data (wiki activities, not page content) and the safety boundary. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further probing.

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?

With a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents course_ids fully. The phrase 'across one or more courses' confirms multi-course semantics but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Wiki activities') and states the scope ('across one or more courses'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not need sibling differentiation because no other wiki tool exists among the siblings, but it also doesn't tie itself to a category like 'activity modules'.

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?

Usage context is clear (per-course wiki activity listing) and an explicit exclusion is given: reading/editing pages is unsupported, so the agent won't try to fetch page content with this tool. What's missing is routing guidance for where wiki page content or editing can be found, if anywhere.

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