list_wiki_pages

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only listing operation but adds no detail about response shape, whether content is included by default, pagination behavior beyond the schema, or required access. It essentially restates the tool name.

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 filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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 complete enough to identify the operation but not complete enough to invoke it reliably: there is no output schema, no clarification that project_id is needed to scope the request (the schema marks no parameters as required), and no mention of what fields are returned. The with_content option hints at varying output, but the description does not explain its impact.

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 parameters (page, per_page, project_id, with_content) are already documented clearly. The description adds no additional parameter context, which matches the baseline of 3 for well-covered schemas.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('wiki pages') and scopes it to a GitLab project, so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_wiki_page or mention that it returns multiple pages, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of get_wiki_page, create_wiki_page, update_wiki_page, or delete_wiki_page. The only usage signal is the word 'List,' which leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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