list_wiki_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, error handling, or any side effects. The output schema exists but behavior like listing all pages versus paginated is not specified.

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 short, with one sentence followed by an Args list. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be structured more efficiently by including the parameter description inline without the separate Args block.

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?

Despite the tool being simple with one parameter and having an output schema, the description lacks critical context such as usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and sufficient parameter semantics. An agent would need additional assumptions to use it correctly.

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 0%, so description should compensate. The description of 'project_id' as '프로젝트 식별자' merely repeats the schema's 'Project Id' in Korean, adding no further meaning about format, source, or constraints. It is almost a tautology.

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 '프로젝트의 위키 페이지 목록' which clearly indicates listing wiki pages of a project. The verb 'list' and resource 'wiki pages' are specific. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_wiki' or 'update_wiki', the action is distinct enough.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_wiki' or 'list_issues'. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria mentioned. The description is purely factual without usage recommendations.

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