compile_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that compilation uses Claude (implying LLM cost/latency) and that 'full' recompiles everything, but it never states whether existing wiki pages are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens on partial failure.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and mode guidance condensed into one clause. The mode sentence partly duplicates the schema description, which is a minor redundancy but not wasteful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action and the mode switch but omits the PIN authentication requirement described only in the schema, and says nothing about output or the fate of existing pages. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the enum values and default. The description's restatement of mode semantics adds no information beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: processing raw documents and compiling them into structured wiki pages. The action is distinct from siblings like lint_wiki or search_wiki, though the description never names or contrasts those alternatives explicitly.

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 by the mode explanation ('new docs only' default vs 'full' recompile), which tells the agent which mode to pick but not when to invoke this tool at all versus sibling tools like lint_wiki. No when-not conditions or prerequisites (e.g. PIN) are stated as guidance.

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