wikimedia_reference_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: width triggers an actual API preview call while height affects HTML display only. It says nothing about failure handling for missing files or how the 'escaped' and 'separate attribution' outputs relate.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the parameter nuances following. Nothing is redundant, though the first sentence packs two distinct outputs together without separating them.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only loosely characterizes the return as an escaped reference plus separate attribution without indicating shape, fields, or whether style controls only the first part. For a four-parameter read tool with open-world behavior, that leaves a meaningful gap.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does explain the width/height distinction, which is the least obvious part of the schema. It leaves 'title' format unspecified (bare filename vs File: prefix) and does not clarify the style enum values, especially how 'attribution' differs from the always-produced separate attribution.

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 a specific verb and resource: resolve a Commons file and generate an escaped reference plus attribution. An agent can tell this produces citation text rather than raw file data, but the description never names sibling tools such as wikimedia_get_file or wikimedia_download_file, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite eight siblings including the closely related wikimedia_get_file. The citation-oriented phrasing hints at a use case, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this over a plain file lookup.

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