wiki_hits_analysis

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It explains what the scores mean and how to interpret them, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or if it has any side effects on the wiki graph. This leaves some ambiguity.

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 compact and well-structured: a single defining sentence followed by two clarifying sentences that explain the output interpretation and usage. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

For a tool with no parameters, the description adequately covers purpose and interpretation of results. It could mention the output format or whether scores are normalized, but this is not essential for an agent to decide when to use the tool.

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 has no parameters, so there is no parameter information to add. The description does not need to clarify inputs, and nothing is missing.

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 specific action ('Compute HITS hub and authority scores') and the precise subject ('wiki wikilink graph'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like wiki_search or wiki_cluster_pages.

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 provides concrete use cases: identifying pages needing deepening (high authority) and pages needing comprehensive link coverage (high hub). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke this tool.

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