Lint wiki

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

The annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by explicitly stating 'Nothing is changed.' It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the output is a work list, only technical limits are judged, and the tool does not modify wiki state. This is consistent with the annotations and helps an agent predict side effects.

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 three short, focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads what the tool does, immediately clarifies the read-only nature and output type, and then adds a relevant scope exclusion. Every 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?

For a read-only audit tool with all optional, self-documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: what is checked, that nothing changes, what the result is, and what is deliberately not judged. There is no output schema, so a little more detail about the exact shape of the work list could help, but it is adequate for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so the description does not need to compensate. The description's list of audit categories roughly mirrors the checks enum but adds no parameter-specific syntax or behavioral detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with the wiki as the resource and enumerates concrete audit categories: frontmatter errors, invalid dates, duplicate ids, dead links, unresolved sources, orphan pages, and empty folders. This clearly distinguishes it from the read/write sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or exclusion by sibling name.

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 phrase 'Nothing is changed - the result is a work list' signals the intended use as a safe, read-only audit and implies it is for gathering findings rather than searching or editing. The statement that folder layout is not judged, only technical limits, is a clear scope exclusion that helps an agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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