wiki_review_queue

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the ranking mechanism ('transparent heuristic of impact, uncertainty and time'), which is real behavioral value, but it never states that the operation is read-only, what constitutes an 'open question', or how ties/ordering are handled.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the ranking criteria, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terse jargon leaves too much implicit rather than being genuinely concise.

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 values need not be explained, and with only one optional parameter the surface is small. Still, the absence of annotations plus an undocumented limit and undefined 'open questions' leaves the definition thinner than a triage tool warrants.

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% and the single 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (max items returned? max questions scanned?) and default of 5 are undocumented outside the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all.

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 pairs a specific verb (rank) with a specific resource (open questions) and names the ranking criteria, which no sibling (search/read/changes/capture/propose/context) does. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from siblings such as wiki_propose, and 'open questions' is left undefined.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this queue versus wiki_search, wiki_changes, or wiki_propose, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer that this is a triage/prioritization surface from the phrase 'review queue' alone.

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