Wikipedia Recent Changes

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Includes useful behavioral details: returns up to 10 matches, includes specific fields. However, does not disclose read-only nature, error handling, or pagination.

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?

Two sentences, no superfluous information. Front-loaded with action and result summary. Efficient.

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 simple search tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return structure, and use case. Lacks mention of edge cases (no results, errors) but is largely complete.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'query' parameter. Description adds 'by name' but lacks details on format, length, or encoding requirements, providing minimal added meaning.

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?

Clear verb 'Search' with specific resource 'Wikidata entities', and mentions return content (Q-id, label, description). Distinguishes from siblings (wiki_page_summary, wiki_recent_changes, wiki_trending) by focusing on search/disambiguation.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use this for entity disambiguation / canonicalization', providing clear context for when to use. Does not mention when not to use, but siblings are distinct enough.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what the tool returns but does not mention error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites beyond an article title. Adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Two sentences: first defines action and outputs, second states use cases. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but lacks details on error scenarios or output format. Could mention that the title must be an existing Wikipedia article.

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?

Only one parameter 'title' with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter format or constraints. However, the parameter name and context make its purpose obvious. Minimal added value.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('clean summary of a Wikipedia article'), listing specific outputs (extract, thumbnail, description, last modified) and a use case. It is distinct from sibling tools like wikidata_search or wiki_trending.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'verify an entity exists or pull a one-line description.' Does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling context implies differentiation.

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

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses real-time nature ('live feed', 'within minutes') and read-only intent, but lacks details on rate limits or authentication; however, the behavioral traits are adequately conveyed for a simple read operation.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with tool purpose and return details. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, return fields, key filters, and use case. Missing explanation of the 'namespace' parameter and 'limit' defaults reduces completeness slightly.

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 coverage is 50% (topic and namespace described in schema; limit and exclude_bots missing). Description adds meaning for 'topic' (substring match against title+comment) and mentions 'exclude_bots', but does not explain 'limit' or 'namespace'. Compensates partially but leaves gaps.

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?

Clearly states it provides a live feed of recent Wikipedia edits, lists returned fields, and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'English Wikipedia' and mentioning trend-monitoring use case, unlike wikidata_search, wiki_page_summary, or wiki_trending.

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?

Gives explicit context for use (trend/news monitoring) and mentions optional filters, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare against siblings for exclusion.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the default date and English-language scope but omits behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more explicit.

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?

Two efficient sentences: first states core function with scope, second provides usage context. No filler, front-loaded, highly economical.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, input, and usage signal. Could mention output format (e.g., list with view counts) but not essential.

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% (the only parameter 'date' is described). The description adds 'default yesterday' which is already in schema documentation, so no additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool returns the 'Top 50 most-viewed English Wikipedia pages' for a date, using specific verb 'top' and resource 'Wikipedia pages'. It is well-distinguished from siblings like wikidata_search (search) and wiki_page_summary (summary).

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 explicitly recommends use for 'what's the world reading about?' signal, providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but sibling names imply distinct purposes.

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