deepwiki_fetch

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 mentions fetching and returning Markdown but omits critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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 (4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'fetching' entails, how the Markdown is structured, error conditions, or usage constraints. For a tool with significant undocumented aspects, more context is needed.

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 50%, with only the 'url' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'maxDepth', 'mode', or 'verbose' parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('fetch') and resource ('deepwiki.com repo'), and specifies the output format ('return Markdown'). It distinguishes the tool by mentioning the specific domain (deepwiki.com) and output type. However, without sibling tools, there's no explicit differentiation from alternatives.

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 this tool versus other methods or tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations. With no sibling tools mentioned, it doesn't address alternatives within the server.

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