get_wiki_info

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

With the readOnlyHint annotation already declaring the tool's safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what metadata is returned (path, mode, section count). It does not contradict annotations and clarifies the tool's scope without going beyond what's needed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key outputs. No filler words or redundant details.

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?

The tool is simple (no params), has an output schema, and has a readOnly annotation. The description provides all necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and how it differs from siblings. Nothing substantive is missing.

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?

This tool requires zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on outputs rather than inputs.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get metadata about the connected wiki instance' and lists the specific metadata fields (path, mode, section count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, browse, search, or get sections.

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 implies the tool is for obtaining instance-level metadata, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, so the usage context is only partially clear.

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