get_wiki_info

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent uninformed beyond the immediate action.

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 very short (one line plus parameter definition), no wasted words. However, parameter documentation uses a separate line, which is fine. Could be more structured (e.g., stating output format) but remains efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on what 'general information' includes, and no usage scenarios are provided, making it minimally complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'wiki' parameter, but the description adds meaningful context by defining 'wiki' as a subdomain with common examples (ogame, minecraft). This compensates for the schema gap, though format details could be clearer.

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 tool retrieves 'general information about a Fandom wiki', which is a specific action on a defined resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_article' (specific article) or 'search_wiki' (search), so purpose differentiation is strong.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies its use for general wiki info, but lacks when-not or direct comparisons. It's adequate but not proactive.

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