wiki_cluster_pages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It explains the algorithm (GAAC, TF-IDF), the similarity threshold for merge candidates, and the default behavior for n_clusters, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. This missing safety information prevents a higher score.

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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points to list the identified outputs. It conveys the necessary information in three short sentences plus a parameter note, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the presence of an output schema and the relative simplicity of a clustering tool, the description is largely complete. It covers the input parameter, algorithm, and expected outputs. It could mention whether the tool operates on all wiki pages or a subset and whether it modifies data, but these are minor 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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name and type, with no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining the meaning of n_clusters and its default behavior ('auto = sqrt of page count if omitted'), adding significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Cluster wiki pages by semantic similarity using GAAC (TF-IDF).' It also enumerates specific outputs (natural topic clusters, missing links, merge candidates), making it distinct from sibling tools like wiki_search or wiki_read_page.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no comparison to sibling tools such as wiki_search or analyze_semantic_structure, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the purpose.

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