wikiviews

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the date format constraint (YYYYMMDD) which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, response format, pagination, or error conditions. The description doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 with zero waste. First sentence states purpose clearly, second sentence provides critical format requirement. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for this tool.

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 query tool with 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It doesn't describe the return format (daily counts structure) or potential limitations, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds the date format requirement which is already covered in the schema descriptions. No additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Get daily pageview counts'), resource ('for a specific Wikipedia article'), and scope ('over a date range'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on individual article views rather than project-level views or top articles.

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 implies usage context through the date range requirement but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_project_views' or 'get_top_articles'. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites is provided.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the date format constraint ('Dates must be in YYYYMMDD format'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention other important traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, or what the return format looks like (though there's no output schema).

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second provides a critical constraint. Every word earns its place, and it's appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 moderate complexity (date-range query with no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the purpose and date format, but without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more about the return values (e.g., that it returns aggregate totals) or any limitations. It's minimally viable but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (start and end dates with format examples). The description adds the date format requirement, but this is redundant with the schema. No additional parameter meaning is provided beyond what's in 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 specific action ('Get aggregate daily pageview totals'), resource ('all of English Wikipedia'), and scope ('over a date range'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_article_views (which likely gets views for specific articles) and get_top_articles (which likely gets ranking data).

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 implies usage context by specifying 'over a date range' and 'for all of English Wikipedia', which suggests when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like the sibling tools, leaving some guidance gaps.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns ranked data, has a limit of 1000 articles, and focuses on view counts. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error conditions, or pagination behavior, leaving gaps for a 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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes purpose and scope, the second adds crucial behavioral details (limit and ranking). Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 tool with 3 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and scope. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention more about return format (e.g., structure of article data) or error handling to be fully complete for agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying date-based filtering. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 specific action ('Get the most viewed Wikipedia articles') and resource ('Wikipedia articles'), with precise scope ('for a specific day', 'ranked by view count', 'up to 1000 articles'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on top articles rather than individual article views or project-level data.

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 implies usage context through 'for a specific day' and 'ranked by view count', suggesting this tool is for popularity analysis rather than detailed tracking. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like get_article_views or get_project_views, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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