MCP-IQWiki

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 states the tool retrieves activities but does not mention critical details like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly, which aligns well with best practices for conciseness.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only status, error handling), output format, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool of this complexity, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, resulting in a low score.

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 already documents all parameters (id, activityType, timeFrameSeconds) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 'wiki activities (creations or edits)' for a specific user on IQ.wiki, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like GET_USER_CREATED_WIKIS or GET_USER_EDITED_WIKIS, which appear to handle similar activities but are more specific. This lack of sibling distinction prevents a perfect score.

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, such as the sibling tools GET_USER_CREATED_WIKIS and GET_USER_EDITED_WIKIS. It mentions the activity types (CREATED or UPDATED) but does not clarify if this tool is for combined queries or how it differs from the more specific siblings, leaving usage context implied at best.

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