Radix Wiki

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals auth prerequisites, path-specific balance gates, and the side effect of earning contribution points. It does not describe return values or all possible side effects, but these details go well beyond a generic create statement.

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 dense sentences, zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and each additional sentence contributes a distinct actionable detail: auth, category retrieval, and balance gating/points.

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 (nested content blocks, auth flow, balance gates), the description covers critical operational context. The schema handles the parameter structure. It lacks an explicit statement about return value/response, but the description already includes outcome ('earns contribution points') and prerequisites.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising that tagPath should come from get_categories and that some paths are balance-gated, which aids parameter selection without repeating schema text.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: "Create a new Radix Wiki page." This clearly distinguishes from siblings like edit_page and get_categories by framing creation of a new page.

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 concrete usage context: requires a ROLA bearer token, instructs to call get_categories first for a valid tagPath, and notes balance-gated paths. It does not explicitly name alternatives like edit_page for existing pages, but the 'new' qualifier implies the distinction.

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, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: requires a ROLA bearer token, computes version bump/diff/revision server-side, rejects locked/author-only pages, and earns contribution points. It also clarifies that content is a full array, not a patch, which is critical behavioral nuance.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, auth, workflow, restrictions/side effects. The description is front-loaded with 'Edit an existing Radix Wiki page' and contains 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?

Covers all essential aspects for an edit tool: authentication, prerequisite fetch, data semantics, server-side behavior, restrictions, and side effects (contribution points). Despite no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 descriptions cover all parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by specifying that 'content' must be the full revised block array (not a patch) and that omitting it changes only title or metadata. This extra context elevates the score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing Radix Wiki page.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_page and get_page by emphasizing 'existing' and the edit action.

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 workflow guidance: 'Fetch the page with get_page first and send the full revised block array.' It also states failure conditions ('Locked and author-only pages are rejected') and implies when not to use it (existing pages only). This is exemplary usage direction.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the description adds that it returns a hierarchy with page counts. It does not explicitly say 'does not modify data,' but the read-only nature is evident from the wording.

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 no wasted words. It front-loads the main function ('Get the wiki tag hierarchy with page counts') and then adds a concise usage note.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and the description explains both what is returned and why it is useful. Given the absence of an output schema, describing the result as 'hierarchy with page counts' is sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none exists, but it does mention tagPath in the usage context, which helps the agent understand how the output may be used.

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 retrieves the wiki tag hierarchy with page counts per category. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages or search_wiki, which serve different purposes.

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 states when this tool is useful: for understanding existing content and finding a valid tagPath before writing. This gives clear application context and connects to write operations like create_page/edit_page.

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, the description fully discloses behavior: single-use, 5-minute expiry, the response contains a signing recipe, the user always signs with their own key, and no key custody is involved. This provides strong safety and flow transparency.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the tool's role. Every sentence adds essential context (purpose, challenge behavior, signing details, no-parameter confirmation) 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the response contains (the signing recipe), the constraints (single-use, expiry), and the security model (own key, non-custodial), leaving no significant gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty. The description explicitly confirms 'Takes no parameters,' which prevents parameter hallucination. Since there are no params to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as 'Step 1 of writing to the wiki' and explains it produces a single-use ROLA challenge. This distinguishes it from siblings like login or create_page, making the purpose specific and actionable.

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 states when to use it ('Step 1 of writing to the wiki') and implies a sequence, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases. The context is clear, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a single text document and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention potential size concerns, performance implications, or any access constraints, leaving some 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?

Two short sentences: the first immediately states the main action, the second adds a usage note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what it does and the output format ('single text document'). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return value.

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 tool has 0 parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. No parameter descriptions are needed, and this is fully represented.

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 action ('Return') and the specific resource ('entire Radix Wiki') with format ('single text document'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page (single page) and search_wiki (filtered results).

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 an explicit use case: 'Use for comprehensive context or bulk ingestion.' This implies when to use, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use, so it stops short of a 5.

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 transparency burden. It discloses the board structure (status columns, card attributes) and the type of content (community proposals and Radix DAO tasks). It does not mention pagination or exact return shape, but for a read-only kanban view this is reasonable and non-misleading.

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 and packs the essential information: the tool's subject, the pipeline stages, card metadata, and the intended use case. Every clause adds value and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description explains the returned data composition well enough. It could mention that results are filtered by parameters or whether the board is returned as a whole, but the provided context is sufficient for most invocations.

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 input schema already fully documents both parameters ('category' and 'workingGroup'). The description mentions 'working group' and 'category' as card attributes, subtly reinforcing the filter semantics, but it does not add technical detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names a clear resource ('RADIX Wiki Ideas Pipeline kanban'), elaborating the status columns and card fields. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_wiki or list_pages, which serve general retrieval.

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 says 'Use this to follow DAO / project progress,' giving a clear use case. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is enough to guide selection among the sibling read tools.

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?

The description indicates a read-only operation that returns the page's full text content, which is useful. With no annotations, however, it does not disclose potential errors, permissions, or the exact shape of the response beyond 'full text'.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple fetch operation and front-loads the key action and resource.

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 low-complexity tool with two well-documented parameters, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the return value (full text content), but it omits any mention of not-found behavior or alternatives, and there is no output schema to further clarify the response.

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 already has 100% coverage for both parameters (tagPath and slug) with clear examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'full text content of a specific Radix Wiki page'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages, search_wiki, and get_categories.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need a specific page's full text and have the required tagPath and slug. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like search_wiki or list_pages, nor any exclusions.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but gives no details about auth requirements, rate limits, response format, or default behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a relevant use case without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how it differs from siblings like list_pages or get_full_corpus. It only states 'recently updated wiki pages' without describing the result format or clarifying its comparative niche, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 both days and limit having meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not mention parameters or add any extra meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 action and resource: 'Get recently updated wiki pages.' The phrase 'recently updated' distinguishes this from siblings such as list_pages or get_page, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 an implied use case ('Useful for monitoring new content') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_wiki or list_pages. There is no exclusion or comparison, so the guidance is only implicit.

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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic listing action and optional tag filter; it does not mention pagination, sorting defaults, result shape, or whether it returns summary vs full content. The read-only nature is implied but not 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?

The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and object. Every word is functional, with no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameters, the description lacks key operational details such as pagination behavior, sort options, and result composition. With no output schema or annotations, this leaves the tool's behavior under-specified for an agent.

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 schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the word 'optionally' regarding tagPath, confirming it's not required, but does not enhance understanding of the other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'Radix Wiki pages', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_page (single page retrieval) and search_wiki (full-text search). Mentioning the optional tagPath filter adds scope precision.

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 list_pages versus alternatives such as search_wiki, get_page, or get_full_corpus. No exclusions or preferred contexts are stated, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the token's 7-day lifetime, that it is the same verification as the human wallet flow, and how the token is consumed (header). This is significant behavioral context, though it doesn't mention failure modes or security precautions.

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 tightly crafted sentences. The first sentence conveys the core purpose; the second gives critical usage instructions. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description effectively explains the tool's role in the authentication flow, the token's validity period, and how to use the token in subsequent calls. It explicitly names two sibling tools (create_page/edit_page) that require the token, but it could be slightly more general by noting that the token is required for all authenticated endpoints. Still, given the schema coverage and no output schema, the description is ample.

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 parameters are fully documented (e.g., "The challenge from get_challenge"). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: "exchange the signed ROLA proof for a 7-day Bearer token." The verb "exchange" is specific, and the resource (ROLA proof) and output (Bearer token) are explicit. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which are content operations, while this is an authentication step.

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 says this is "Step 2" in a flow, implying use after get_challenge, and provides direct instructions: "Send the returned token as an HTTP `Authorization: Bearer <token>` header on every later create_page / edit_page call." It also clarifies that tool arguments never carry the token, which is crucial for correct usage.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the search behavior (matching against titles and content) and the return payload (titles, URLs, snippets, update dates), which gives the agent a good sense of what to expect. It does not mention pagination or permission requirements, but for a read-only search operation, the key behaviors are disclosed.

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 long, sets the primary purpose in the first sentence, and adds relevant detail in the second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, matching criteria, and return fields, which is sufficient for a search tool. It does not explain pagination behavior or the tagPath filtering parameter, but those are documented in the schema. Given the absence of an output schema, the mention of return fields is valuable. Slight gaps on pagination semantics prevent a perfect score.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it does clarify that 'query' matches against titles and content. No additional syntax or format details are provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('Radix Wiki pages'), and further clarifies the scope by stating it matches against titles and content. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page (retrieve a specific page) or list_pages (enumerate all pages).

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 for keyword-based lookup but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_pages or get_page. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of alternative tools, so the guidance is only implicit.

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