taiga_wiki_links_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' implying a read, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, what it returns, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), or authentication needs. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that states the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema, so a note about the return value (e.g., the full wiki link object) would improve completeness. The lack of any usage context or behavioral details leaves clear gaps, but the tool is simple enough that selection and invocation are still feasible.

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 100% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Wiki link ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'by ID', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (Get), the resource (wiki link), and the identifier criterion (by ID). It distinguishes from the sibling taiga_wiki_links_list, which implies a list operation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool when you have a specific wiki link ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like taiga_wiki_links_list for browsing all links, missing an opportunity for clear guidance.

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