get_wiki_stats

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the exact return values (orphan pages, top-linked pages, tag distribution, link count, and section stats), which are not specified elsewhere. No contradictions.

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 consists of just two efficient sentences. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, and the second lists its outputs and usage. No extraneous words.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. It covers the main statistics but omits potential error conditions or limitations. For a simple one-parameter tool, this is sufficient.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'repo' described as 'Repository identifier (owner/repo or just repo name).' The description does not add any additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 it's a 'Wiki health dashboard' and enumerates the returned statistics (orphan pages, most-linked pages, tag distribution, etc.), making its purpose specific and distinct from other sibling tools.

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?

The description advises using it for 'periodic wiki lint checks,' which provides a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar health-check tools like get_doc_health or get_broken_links, nor does it state when not to use it.

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