describe_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only hints at a stale-revision behavior without explaining what happens (error? re-describe? invalidation?). Auth needs, side effects, and return behavior are undisclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, but they are under-specified rather than concise; the front-loaded sentence talks about a calling ritual instead of the operation, wasting the most valuable position.

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?

Three undocumented required params, no annotations, and no output schema leave the agent with essentially nothing to call the tool correctly; the description does not compensate for any of these gaps.

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?

All three required parameters (pageId, revision, name) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. 'revision' is mentioned incidentally but with no semantics about its format, staleness rules, or relationship to pageId.

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 never states what describe_tool actually does beyond the vague phrase 'fresh inspection and description.' It reads as calling instructions ('Read the full current input schema before calling') rather than a purpose statement, so an agent cannot tell what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings like inspect_page or call_tool.

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 advises reading the schema before calling and alludes to a stale-revision condition, but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no differentiation from siblings such as inspect_page or script_library_status.

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