list_wiki_pages

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 states the tool lists pages but does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

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 tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return values, error conditions, or how parameters like 'recursive' affect the listing. For a list operation that might return structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, providing details for all three parameters (project, wiki, recursive). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents, such as explaining how parameters interact or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List all pages in a wiki' clearly states the action (list) and resource (pages in a wiki), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'search_wiki_pages', which could serve a similar purpose but with filtering capabilities, missing an opportunity for 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_wiki_pages' or 'get_wiki_page'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific project or wiki, or when recursive listing is appropriate, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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