read_wiki_structure

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already indicate a safe read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, performance implications beyond the prerequisite). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could add context about what happens if the prerequisite is not met.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a necessary prerequisite. There is no redundant information, and the content is front-loaded.

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?

With one parameter and no output schema, the description should provide enough context about what the tool returns. It does not describe the return format or structure (e.g., table of contents as a tree). While the prerequisite and purpose are clear, the absence of output expectations makes it less complete.

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 100% coverage (parameter description provided). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema sufficiently documents the parameter.

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 'Get the table of contents and structure of a generated wiki,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_wiki_page (reads content) and get_wiki_stats (statistics).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires: index_repository must be called first'), which guides usage but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., read_wiki_page) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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