lint_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It accurately describes the audit's focus, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, returns only a report, or if any side effects occur. 'Audit' hints at non-modifying behavior, but explicit statements about output or side effects would improve transparency.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, specifying the exact types of audit findings without redundancy.

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 simple, parameterless lint/audit tool, the description is quite complete. It communicates the tool's purpose and scope. While it does not describe the output format, the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool make this acceptable; the description still gives a clear picture of behavior.

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 zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The tool's purpose as an audit with no inputs is clear, matching the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('the wiki vault'), and narrows the scope with the types of findings ('contradictions, orphans, and missing cross-references'). This distinctly differentiates it from siblings add_document and search_wiki, which are separate operations.

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 the use case: when you need to audit the wiki for quality issues. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is clear and the sibling tools (add_document, search_wiki) are obviously different, providing indirect when-to-use guidance.

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