wiki.link

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It only states the basic creation action, omitting side effects, idempotency, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate links. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's core function, though additional details could be added without harming conciseness.

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 7 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description severely lacks context. It does not cover parameter relationships, required vs. optional, return values, error handling, or linking semantics, making it inadequate for proper agent use.

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 coverage is only 14% (only 'relation' has a description). The description does not explain any parameter beyond hinting at types via 'memory, source, or kb'. The meaning of required fields like source_id, target_id, source_type, target_type, and optional fields like project_id and project_root is left entirely to the agent.

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 action (create a cross-reference link), the resource (wiki entries), and constrains the types (memory, source, or kb). This distinguishes it from siblings like wiki.lint or wiki.export.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wiki.links (listing links) or other creation tools. The agent receives no context about prerequisites, consequences, or preferred scenarios.

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