wiki_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns page count, method count, and categories, which gives some insight into output, but does not address side effects, authentication, or error behavior. For a simple read-only stats tool this is adequate but not thorough.

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, focused sentence that immediately states the purpose and provides concrete examples. It has no unnecessary words 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 statistics tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description gives a clear idea of the return content (page count, method count, categories). It leaves minor ambiguity about whether categories are counts or lists, but overall it is sufficiently complete for its simplicity.

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 an empty schema, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 statistics about the wiki knowledge base, with specific examples (page count, method count, categories). This distinguishes it from siblings like wiki_read and wiki_search, which focus on content retrieval or searching.

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 explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the usage context inferred but not stated.

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