load_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: exact-match-only semantics, determinism, and near-match suggestions on a miss. It does not cover permissions or listing/ordering behavior, but the failure-mode disclosure is valuable beyond structured fields.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and its defining constraint, then the failure behavior. No wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers input semantics and miss handling adequately; only edge details like multi-entity partial-miss behavior are absent.

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?

One parameter ('entities', an array of strings) with 0% schema coverage. The phrase 'by exact name' clarifies that the items are exact page names, which adds meaning, but the array semantics (one vs many, batching, ordering) are left unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (Load) and resource (compiled wiki pages) with a key constraint (by exact name). It implicitly contrasts with write_wiki in the sibling set, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

'By exact name — deterministic' implies the appropriate usage context and 'Misses suggest near matches' tells the agent what happens on failure, but no alternative tool or precondition is named. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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