wiki

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it does not disclose whether operations are read-only, what each action does, permission or auth requirements, rate limits, or what result shape to expect. It only adds a multi-repo limit of 10, which is useful but insufficient for a nine-parameter multi-action tool.

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 short and front-loads the core-purpose statement, then follows with practical parameter guidance and a concise example. It is efficient, though the example focuses only on the ask path and does not structure the remaining actions.

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 nine parameters, a required action enum, no annotations, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is materially incomplete. An agent still cannot confidently determine how to use search, fetch, ask, and architecture, or how most parameters interact.

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 only 11%, so the description needs to compensate, and it does explain owner+repo versus repos and gives a question example. But it leaves the required action enum entirely unexplained and provides no guidance on query versus question, wiki_name, limit, or offset.

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 identifies the resource and source systems clearly: repo architecture and wiki content via DeepWiki and CodeWiki. However, it frames the tool with multiple action modes (search, fetch, ask, architecture) without clarifying what each mode does, and it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings such as docs or code_search.

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?

It gives useful parameter-selection guidance for single-repo versus multi-repo use cases and includes an example, but it does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like docs or code_search, nor does it explain when each action value should be chosen.

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