mcp-mediawiki-crunchtools

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adequately describes the return structure (content, revision info, metadata) but lacks operational details such as caching behavior, rate limits, permissions required, or what happens when a page doesn't exist.

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 appropriately brief with three efficient lines. The Args/Returns structure is slightly redundant given the input schema and output schema exist, but it effectively front-loads the purpose and wastes no words.

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 this is a simple single-parameter read operation with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It confirms the return payload types without needing to elaborate on output schema details, though mentioning error handling would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage (title lacks a description field). The description compensates effectively by providing an example value ('Main Page') and clarifying that this refers to the page title, giving the agent sufficient context to construct valid inputs.

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 (Get) and resource (page wikitext content), and implicitly distinguishes from get_page_html_tool by specifying 'wikitext' rather than HTML. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_tool or list_pages_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_page_html_tool (for rendered content), search_tool (for finding pages), or list_pages_tool (for browsing). No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned.

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