get_wikis_count

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Returns count'), but it does not clarify whether projectId or projectKey is required, what happens if both or neither are provided, or any access restrictions. This ambiguity could lead to incorrect invocation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic understanding, but it leaves critical gaps: the schema lists both parameters as optional, yet the description never specifies that at least one is needed for the count. Additionally, the exact return format (e.g., number vs. object) is not stated, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill these gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; projectId and projectKey are already explained in the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('Returns count') and resource ('wiki pages in a project'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_wiki_pages, which returns the pages themselves, and count_issues, which counts a different resource.

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 usage context is implied—use when you need the number of wiki pages—but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_wiki_pages for page details. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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