wiki_lint

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('health check') but does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications or side effects. Given the absence of annotations, the description carries the full burden but leaves the behavioral guarantees somewhat vague.

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 highly concise—only two sentences—and avoids unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the action ('Run a health check') and lists the key detection capabilities efficiently.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's scope and trigger appropriate usage. It does not mention output format or return details, but for a zero-parameter health check, this omission is minor and does not hinder correct invocation.

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 nothing to describe. With no parameter list, the baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly omits any irrelevant parameter details.

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: running a health check on the wiki vault and explicitly lists the specific issues it detects (orphan pages, broken wikilinks, missing frontmatter). This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which focus on other operations like search, memory, or URL fetching.

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 makes the intent obvious, so an agent knows when to use this tool (when a wiki health check is needed). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, no sibling tool offers a similar linting/health-check function, so the guidance is implicitly sufficient.

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