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 action ('Get categories') but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., list of category names, with metadata), potential errors (e.g., if the page doesn't exist), or performance aspects (e.g., rate limits). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely queries an external API.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly without 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of categories, error formats), which is critical for a read-only query tool. While the purpose is clear, the absence of behavioral and output details makes it inadequate for full agent understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'title' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't elaborate on the 'title' parameter (e.g., formatting requirements or examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('categories associated with a specific page'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'listAllCategories' (which lists all categories) and 'getPageContent' (which gets page content), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. However, it lacks specificity about what 'categories' means in the Minecraft Wiki context.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for metadata about a page) or when to use siblings like 'listAllCategories' (for browsing all categories) or 'getPageContent' (for full page details). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from tool names alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'raw wikitext content,' which hints at read-only behavior, but does not disclose critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the returned content (e.g., plain text, structured data). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions, which are important for an agent to use the tool effectively. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'title' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. 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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('raw wikitext content of a specific Minecraft Wiki page'), distinguishing it from siblings like getPageSummary (which likely provides processed content) or getPageSection (which retrieves only part of a page). It precisely communicates what the tool does without redundancy.

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 for retrieving raw wikitext, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPageSummary (for summaries) or getPageSection (for specific sections). It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or named alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the section indexing system (starting at 0 for main content) and the sequential workflow, but doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by essential usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage workflow, and parameter semantics, but lacks details on return format, error cases, or performance constraints, which would be helpful for full contextual understanding.

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 both parameters fully. The description adds context about section indexing (0 = main, 1 = first section, etc.), which clarifies the 'sectionIndex' parameter beyond the schema's basic description. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a specific section from a Minecraft Wiki page'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'getPageContent' (entire page) and 'getPageSummary' (summary only) by focusing on sections.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'as step 3 after searching for the page and getting its summary.' It also implies alternatives by referencing previous steps (searching and getting summary), though it doesn't name specific sibling tools for comparison.

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

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 the tool returns 'both the page summary AND a list of all available sections,' which adds useful context about output structure. However, it doesn't cover potential errors (e.g., invalid page titles), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is adequate but lacks depth on operational 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and workflow role. Every sentence earns its place: the first explains what the tool does and its position in the workflow, and the second clarifies the next step. There is no redundant or vague language, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and output components (summary and sections). However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on return format (e.g., structure of the section list). Overall, it covers essential context but has a minor gap in output specification.

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%, with the single parameter 'title' documented as 'Title of the Minecraft Wiki page.' The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting requirements or examples. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no extra value is added, but no gap exists.

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 specific action ('get both the page summary AND a list of all available sections') and resource ('Minecraft Wiki page'), distinguishing it from siblings like getPageSection (retrieves specific section) and getPageContent (likely full content). It explicitly positions this as 'Step 2 of the recommended workflow' after search, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('After finding a page through search') and why ('helps determine which specific section to retrieve next using getPageSection'). It names the alternative tool (getPageSection) and clarifies the workflow sequence, offering comprehensive usage context that prevents confusion with similar tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states it 'retrieves an overview' but doesn't clarify what 'overview' entails (e.g., section titles, IDs, hierarchy), whether it's read-only, if there are rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves key operational traits undisclosed.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse without 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured section data. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of sections with metadata), leaving the agent guessing about output behavior despite the simple input schema.

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%, with the single parameter 'title' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying it's for a page, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance 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 ('Retrieves an overview') and resource ('all sections in the page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'MinecraftWiki_getPageSection' (which gets specific section content) or 'MinecraftWiki_getPageContent' (which gets full page content), missing the opportunity for perfect sibling distinction.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'MinecraftWiki_getPageSection' for detailed content or 'MinecraftWiki_getPageContent' for full text, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone without explicit context.

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

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 states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all categories') and efficiently specifies the context ('in the Minecraft Wiki'), making it highly scannable and effective.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with parameters. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how results are returned, error handling) and doesn't compensate for the missing output schema, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('prefix' and 'limit'), including defaults and constraints. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.

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 ('List all categories') and resource ('in the Minecraft Wiki'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'MinecraftWiki_listCategoryMembers' or 'MinecraftWiki_getCategoriesForPage', which 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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'MinecraftWiki_listCategoryMembers' (which lists members of a specific category) or 'MinecraftWiki_getCategoriesForPage' (which gets categories for a page), leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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

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 what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, error handling (e.g., if the category doesn't exist), or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List all pages') and specifies the context ('members of a specific category on the Minecraft Wiki'), making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (listing category members with parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, or error handling. For a tool with no structured output information, the description should ideally provide more context about what is returned, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('category' and 'limit'), including examples and defaults. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or edge cases. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 ('List all pages') and resource ('members of a specific category on the Minecraft Wiki'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'MinecraftWiki_listAllCategories' (which lists categories rather than category members) and 'MinecraftWiki_searchWiki' (which performs broader searches).

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 for retrieving pages within a category but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used over 'MinecraftWiki_searchWiki' for category-specific queries or mention prerequisites like category existence. Guidance is implied by the tool's name and purpose but not explicitly articulated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action ('Resolve a redirect') and output ('return the title'), but lacks details on behavior such as error handling (e.g., if the page is not a redirect), rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies or interprets data.

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 function and output. It is front-loaded with the core action and has no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are needed for full understanding, especially without annotations to fill in gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, fully describing the single parameter 'title'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it only implies the parameter is used for resolution without extra details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a redirect'), and identifies the output ('return the title of the target page'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'MinecraftWiki_getPageContent' or 'MinecraftWiki_searchWiki', which might also involve page titles, though the function is distinct.

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. It does not mention scenarios like handling redirects in search results or preprocessing titles for other tools, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context unclear.

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

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool's limitations (complex queries won't work), best practices for usage (search for basic names first), and its role in a multi-step workflow. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format details, which could be useful for an agent.

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 well-structured and concise, with three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's function, outlining limitations, and providing a usage workflow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (a search function with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints effectively. However, it lacks details on the response format (e.g., what the search returns) and error cases, which could enhance completeness for an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' clearly documented as a search term. The description adds semantic context by specifying what types of queries work best (basic entity/structure/etc names) and what doesn't (complex queries), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as searching the Minecraft Wiki for specific types of content (structures, entities, items, or blocks). It uses the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'Minecraft Wiki' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getPageSummary and getPageSection by being the entry point for basic searches.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for basic search terms like item/block/structure/entity names) and when not to use it (for complex queries like 'loot table of X' or 'how to craft Y'). It also outlines a workflow with alternatives, directing users to first use this tool, then getPageSummary, and finally getPageSection for specific content.

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