wiki_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a passive status read by listing only reported facts, but does not state explicitly that calling has no side effects, whether it triggers a refresh or hits disk/network, or whether results are cached and could be stale — the one trait an agent most needs here.

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?

A single compact clause with no filler; every item named is a distinct piece of returned information. It is slightly under-structured as a bare fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists and the description need not explain return values, and with zero parameters the call mechanics are trivial. However, for a diagnostic tool sitting beside refresh_wiki, the missing signal about when to check status versus when to refresh leaves a real completeness gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema trivially covers the empty argument set with nothing the description needs to compensate for.

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 enumerates the specific data the tool surfaces (server version, data revision, cache location, entry counts, last refresh result), which makes clear it is a status/diagnostic inspection tool. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'reports'), reading as a noun fragment, but the intended purpose is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like refresh_wiki.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The agent is left to infer that this should be called to check wiki freshness or version before other operations rather than, say, calling refresh_wiki, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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