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. It discloses pagination behavior via 'from_name' and return structure ('List of files with metadata'), but omits safety characteristics, rate limits, or what specific metadata is returned.

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?

Uses structured Args/Returns format that is front-loaded and scannable. Slightly mechanical docstring style but zero redundancy; every line conveys parameter semantics or return type that the schema fails to provide.

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 output schema exists (per context signals) and all 4 parameters are documented in the description, the tool is sufficiently specified for invocation. Missing only behavioral edge cases (error conditions, permission failures) which would elevate it to completeness tier.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters: 'prefix' (filter logic), 'limit' (default/max values), 'mime_type' (with example), and 'from_name' (pagination purpose). Excellent coverage given schema deficiency.

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?

States clear verb-resource pair ('List files on the wiki') and distinguishes from page/category siblings by specifying 'files'. However, it fails to clarify when to use this versus 'get_file_info_tool' for retrieving specific file details.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over 'get_file_info_tool' or 'search_tool', nor does it mention prerequisites like authentication requirements or visibility permissions for wiki files.

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