wiki_assets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and determinism profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only that results carry source URLs, which is modest added context and no contradiction of the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool browses and followed immediately by the alternative. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 no output schema and no annotation-backed detail beyond safety, the description should carry pagination and filtering semantics, but the query/limit/offset behavior is left entirely unexplained. It is adequate to identify the tool but not to invoke it precisely.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the three parameters (limit, query, offset) have no descriptions in the schema or the text. The description never explains that query filters assets or that limit/offset paginate, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb (browse) and enumerates the resource types returned (images, videos, example downloads, text/code attachments) plus the useful detail that source URLs are included. It also distinguishes itself from read_wiki_page for indexed text attachments, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: use read_wiki_page for indexed text attachments, implying wiki_assets covers the remaining asset types. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of how it relates to siblings like external_resources or wiki_links.

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