List Wiki Pages

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

The description confirms the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature consistent with annotations. It details effects, human approval needs, and provides explicit failure mode handling (e.g., login_required, project_not_selected). No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Do not use when, Requires, Effect, Human approval, Then, On failure). Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids quick comprehension despite length. Front-loaded with critical guidance.

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 presence of an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage boundaries, behavioral effects, failure modes, and post-action steps. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The only parameter, projectId, is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description repeats the schema information and adds the note about authorization but does not provide additional semantic nuance beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 clearly states the tool lists the selected Project Wiki root Brief and bounded Page hierarchy. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_wiki_page by focusing on the hierarchy. The special note about project names not being authorization evidence adds clarity.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' sections provide clear context. It specifies when to use (list hierarchy) and when not (if a narrower tool matches or project scope unresolved). It also lists requirements like authenticated authority and selected project, and gives failure handling instructions.

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