Get Category Recent

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 does disclose the result shape (parallel metadata and wikitext arrays) and an ordering guarantee ('in input order'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about permissions, batching limits, failure behavior when a title is missing, or cost for large lists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return shape. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence partially duplicates what the output schema already declares.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, freeing it to cover routing and behavior. It does not, and the name/description mismatch (category vs. article list) plus absent usage guidance leaves the agent with real gaps for a tool that competes with many similar siblings.

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%, so lang, date_limit, and article_list are already documented in the schema, including the max-100 cap and ISO 8601 format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a clear verb+resource (fetch latest revision metadata and wikitext for a list of articles), but it conflicts with the tool name: 'get_category_recent' implies category-scoped retrieval while the schema and description operate on a flat article_list. With near-identical siblings like get_article_recent and get_article_history, an agent cannot tell what uniquely selects this tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The description never explains when to prefer this over get_article_recent, get_article_info, or get_category_pages, which is exactly the ambiguity that matters given the crowded sibling set.

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