deepwiki_fetch

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 mentions fetching and returning Markdown but doesn't describe what 'fetching' entails (e.g., network operations, potential errors, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the repo doesn't exist). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 (6 words) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns beyond 'Markdown' format, doesn't cover error conditions, and provides minimal context about the fetching operation. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional information.

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 the 'url' parameter well-described but others lacking context. The description doesn't add meaningful semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'aggregate' vs 'pages' modes mean or when to use 'verbose'). It partially compensates by implying the tool fetches repos, but doesn't clarify parameter interactions.

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'). However, without sibling tools for comparison, it's impossible to determine if it distinguishes from alternatives, so it cannot earn a 5.

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 alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases. It lacks any contextual framing that would help an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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