get_wiki_command_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions only that the tool gets documentation, but does not describe safety (e.g., read-only), permissions, rate limits, or what happens if the command is invalid. The agent learns the purpose but not the operational guardrails.

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 that efficiently conveys purpose and scope. It avoids fluff but could optionally be structured with bullet points for readability. High information density with minimal words.

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 lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It omits return format (e.g., plain text, structured), error handling, and whether the response includes cross-references. The agent has basic understanding but missing details for robust invocation.

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% with a property description for 'command' ('Command name'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates that the tool targets a specific command. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'detailed syntax documentation', scope 'for a specific Minecraft command', and source 'from the wiki'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_commands' (list) and 'get_wiki_page' (general 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?

The description implies usage when command syntax details are needed but provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. It lacks guidance like 'Use this instead of get_wiki_page for syntax-focused queries'.

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