MinecraftWiki_getPageSummary

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.