wiki_ls

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds the scope="shared" cross-agent meaning, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or truncation behavior for large wikis. Adequate but not rich against annotations that already carry the safety profile.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return format, then the scope nuance, then the routing hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (tree with titles and dates). For a zero-required-parameter browse tool with fully documented params, this is close to complete; only pagination/limit expectations for very large wikis are unaddressed.

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 both parameters (scope, agent_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the namespace SoT policy. The description's mention of scope="shared" duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List wiki pages') plus the return shape ('directory tree with titles and last-updated dates'), and names the sibling it is not (wiki_search). An agent can distinguish it from wiki_read and wiki_search without opening any schema.

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?

'Use to browse; to find pages by content use wiki_search' gives an explicit condition and names the primary alternative. It does not mention wiki_read (to open a specific page), leaving one routing decision to inference, but the core browse-vs-search split is unambiguous.

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