wiki_tasks

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior — output is scoped to one fresh subagent and long steps are split into portions, which implies repeat calling — but it never touches the destructive/idempotent semantics the annotations flag. No contradiction; just partial added value.

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?

It leads with the imperative 'Start here', then explains the payload and the portioning caveat in one sentence before a terse rule pointer. No filler; every clause conveys something an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it still characterizes the payload (tasks with embedded rules and tool lists) and sizing for a subagent. The one gap is sequencing — what happens after a step's tasks are done — which the sibling set implies but the description never states.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says the run_id comes from start_search. The description adds nothing beyond that about the identifier, so the baseline of 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 concrete action and return shape: it fetches 'the current step as self-contained tasks' for building or updating a wiki, each task carrying its own rules and permitted tools. That is more specific than a restated name and lets an agent recognize it as the step-driver for the wiki workflow. It does not name or contrast any of the many sibling tools (next_wiki_article, next_synthesis, bot_next), so the differentiation is only implicit.

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' is an explicit entry-point instruction, and 'Rules: guide("wiki")' points to the companion tool for the governing rules. The guidance covers when to use it, but there is no statement of when not to use it versus the per-stage siblings or what to do after receiving the tasks.

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