瀏覽 Wiki.js 頁面樹

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: traversal is non-recursive and only direct children are returned, which shapes how an agent should iterate the tree. It stops short of 5 by not mentioning result limits, pagination, or ordering.

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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence with the core action front-loaded and the two path conditions expressed in parallel. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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?

For a read-only, three-optional-parameter browsing tool with no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is listed, at what depth, and how path changes scope. The absence of any note on result size or output shape is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the rich annotations.

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 restates the path-omitted-means-root semantics already documented in the schema and says nothing about the mode enum or locale, both of which are fully described in the schema itself — no meaning is added beyond structured data.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('瀏覽 Wiki.js 的目錄結構') and adds the key behavioral qualifier that listing is depth-1 (直接子項目), which distinguishes it from a flat or recursive page listing. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as wikijs_list_pages or wikijs_search_pages, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives clear conditional guidance for the main parameter ('省略 path 時列出根層，指定 path 時列出該目錄的直接子項目'), which tells the agent how to start at root versus descend into a folder. However, it never says when to choose this tool over the sibling page-listing or search tools, so usage is implied by behavior rather than by explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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