wiki_git

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses the mode-dependent behavior (listing vs. searching vs. reading), which is more than the schema gives. However, it never states that the tool is read-only with no side effects, nor how it behaves if both query and page are supplied, nor any pagination or result-size limits.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, each clause carrying distinct invocation information with zero filler. Well-sized for a simple two-parameter lookup tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers all three call patterns. The only gap is the absence of guidance for the ambiguous case where both optional parameters are provided simultaneously.

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 must compensate, and it does for the core semantics: query is a search term producing matches, page is a filename.md producing a full page, and the omitted case lists all pages. It does not clarify mutual exclusivity of the two optional params or the required file extension format.

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-plus-resource ('Search or read the git wiki topic') and implicitly separates itself from the sibling topics (wiki_python, wiki_sql) by naming its scope. An agent can immediately tell what it retrieves and which of the three topic tools to pick.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the three invocation modes and the condition that selects each: no args lists pages, query=<term> finds matches, page=<filename.md> fetches a full page. This is a complete decision rule for how to call the tool.

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