run_wiki_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool writes a file and applies improvements, which is good, but it leaves the actual scope of 'applies improvements' and potential side effects of auto cross-linking unspecified.

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?

One dense, well-structured sentence front-loads the action and then compactly lists the pipeline steps. There is no empty phrasing or repetition of obvious information.

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?

For a zero-parameter mutating tool, the description covers the full pipeline and the primary artifact (_insights.md). It does not describe a return value, and no output schema exists to fill that gap, but the main outcome is clearly the file and the applied improvements.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail to add. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run the full Wiki Health pipeline') and enumerates the distinct stages it executes. Producing _insights.md and applying improvements clearly sets it apart from smaller sibling tools like get_graph_insights or suggest_links.

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?

The description implies this is the go-to tool when a complete wiki health run is requested, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of one of the more focused sibling tools. No regard to exclusions or alternative selection is given.

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