eve_wiki_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] full content' but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or output format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with an external API.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently specifies the resource scope. Every element earns its place without 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 read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage but no output schema or annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, rate limits, or return format, which are important for API tools. The absence of an output schema increases the need for more context in the description.

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 fully documents both parameters ('title' and 'section'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of article content, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra value. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'full content of a specific EVE University Wiki article', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'eve_wiki_search', which searches rather than retrieves specific articles, though this distinction is implied by the different action verbs.

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 by specifying 'specific article', suggesting it's for retrieving known articles rather than searching. No explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'eve_wiki_search' is provided, leaving the distinction to inference from the tool names and descriptions.

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