getWikiPages

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as scope, return shape, or pagination behavior, so it provides only minimal value.

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, direct sentence with no filler, and the action verb is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity partly reflects under-specification rather than deliberately compact completeness.

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?

With a required nested parameter object and no output schema, the description is too thin: it does not state that projectId is required, that format can be json or xml, or what the list operation returns. The schema provides parameter mechanics, but the agent gets no broader context about scope or output.

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 0% and the description says nothing about pathParams, projectId, or format. The agent must rely entirely on the raw schema for parameter semantics, which is a significant gap for a required nested parameter object.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'wiki pages', making the basic operation clear. The plural 'pages' distinguishes it from singular sibling tools like getWikiPage and getWikiPageByVersion, even though project scope is not mentioned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of getWikiPage, getWikiPageByVersion, or other list-style tools. The description does not mention that projectId is required or that format should be chosen, leaving usage decisions entirely to inference.

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