List pages by confidence

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), the description discloses the return format ('plain text: the match count, then up to 50 lines of score path - title'), the ordering ('lowest score first'), and the silent 50-line cap plus omission of unscored pages. Those are exactly the behavioral traits the agent needs and cannot get from structured fields.

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?

One tightly packed passage: purpose and filter first, return shape second, safety flag third, usage routing last. Every clause (range, exclusion, truncation, ordering, alternative tool) carries information; nothing is redundant 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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully compensates by describing the exact return structure, ordering, and truncation limit. Combined with zero required parameters and complete annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool 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 100% and both parameters already document their inclusive bounds and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the range semantics ('between min_confidence and max_confidence') without adding format, edge-case, or interaction details beyond the schema, making 3 the correct baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List wiki pages') plus the exact filtering dimension (frontmatter confidence 0.0-1.0 between min_confidence and max_confidence). It also states the exclusion rule for pages without a confidence value, so an agent knows precisely what the result set is and how it differs from siblings like wiki_dashboard or wiki_query.

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?

It gives an explicit concrete call pattern ('use max_confidence=0.5 to find weak pages to recheck') and names the alternative tool for a different need ('use wiki_dashboard for the overall distribution'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered without inference.

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