wiki_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it does disclose a key behavioral trait: it returns bounded excerpts and 'the host composes the answer', meaning this tool does not synthesize a final answer. That is useful context, but the description omits return format, size-limit behavior, and other operational details.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key division of labor. Every sentence adds meaningful information with no waste.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too sparse. It should explain how query and max_chars behave, what the excerpts look like, and how this tool differs from wiki_search or wiki_read.

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 for both parameters. 'For a question' loosely maps to query and 'bounded' hints at max_chars, but neither parameter is explained clearly, leaving the agent with only vague clues about the input contract.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (gather bounded source excerpts) with the context of answering a question, which distinguishes it from a plain search or read tool. It doesn't explicitly name siblings, but the retrieval-for-composition framing is clear enough to select it over wiki_search or wiki_read.

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?

Only the phrase 'for a question' implies usage context. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as wiki_search or wiki_read, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred.

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