wiki_todo

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly negative and uninformative. The description usefully discloses the return contents (tracks, year, MusicBrainz ids) but says nothing about auth requirements, whether include_all alters the result set, or side effects of the write steps it recommends.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource definition comes first and the routing guidance second. The telegraphic phrasing (fragments, semicolons) is slightly terse but every clause carries 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?

With no output schema and a single boolean parameter, the description covers the return contents and the downstream workflow well, but leaves include_all unexplained and omits any note on expected volume or pagination for a todo-list style tool.

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?

There is one parameter, include_all, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what 'all' adds relative to the default. The name is suggestive but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 identifies a specific resource set ('artists and albums with no bio/wiki text') and the payload a caller gets back ('tracks, year, MusicBrainz ids'). The verb is implicit rather than stated ('lists'/'returns'), but the scope is clear enough to distinguish it from wiki_fill, wiki_sources, and wiki_write.

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?

It explicitly positions itself in a workflow ('Start here, then wiki_fill') and names the alternative path ('write the rest yourself with wiki_sources + wiki_write'). It stops short of a true when-not-to-use statement (e.g. how include_all changes the recommended next step), so it is strong rather than complete.

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