backlog_get_wikis

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, read-only nature, or response characteristics. The description does not address pagination, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but not well-structured. It lacks any logical breakdown or front-loading of key information. The sentence is minimal but not necessarily ineffective.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and a simple input schema, the description should at least indicate the expected output (e.g., a list of wiki objects) or mention any default behavior. It fails to provide sufficient context for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's functionality.

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% as both 'keywords' and 'projectIdOrKey' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage, 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 states it performs a list operation for wikis using the Backlog API, which aligns with the tool name 'backlog_get_wikis'. It is distinguishable from sibling 'backlog_get_wiki' (singular) as it implies listing multiple wikis. However, the phrasing 'list wikis get' is slightly awkward and could be clearer.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't hint that a project ID is required to scope the request.

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