wiki_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful consumption context ('each sized for one fresh subagent') but says nothing about rate limits, task ordering, or what happens across steps; the cryptic 'Rules: guide("wiki")' adds little.

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 compact sentences, with the entry-point instruction front-loaded. The trailing 'Rules: guide("wiki")' is terse to the point of ambiguity but cheap in length.

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 return values need not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented. However, for a workflow-orchestration tool competing with many wiki/synthesis siblings, the description leaves the relationship to next_wiki_article and next_synthesis unclear.

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% and there is a single run_id parameter already documented in the schema ('Run ID from start_search'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, 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 states a specific action (fetch the current step as self-contained tasks) tied to a resource (the wiki build/update workflow) and marks itself as the entry point. It is distinguishable from siblings like next_wiki_article or guide, though the phrasing 'the current step as self-contained tasks' is slightly abstract.

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?

'Start here to build or update the wiki' gives a clear entry-point cue, implying use at the beginning of a wiki workflow. It does not name alternatives (e.g., next_wiki_article, guide) or state when-not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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