wiki_tasks

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false), which is an unusual combination the description never reconciles or explains. The description adds only the task-granularity trait ('each sized for one fresh subagent') and sheds no light on what state the mutation affects or how idempotency works.

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, front-loaded with 'Start here,' with no filler. Slightly penalized because the terse 'Rules: guide("wiki")' fragment is cryptic and would benefit from a few clarifying words without bloating.

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-value explanation is not needed, and annotations cover safety. Still, for a state-touching workflow entry point with a destructive flag, the description omits what calling it does to workflow state, making it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single run_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing about run_id or its source, and the cryptic 'guide("wiki")' reference adds no parameter meaning, so 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 frames the tool as the wiki workflow entry point ('Start here to build or update the wiki') that returns 'the current step as self-contained tasks.' The resource is identifiable but the verb is fuzzy - it's unclear whether it returns tasks, advances workflow state, or both - and it doesn't clearly distinguish itself from the 'next_*' siblings.

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 implied entry-point guidance, and 'Rules: guide("wiki")' points to a companion for constraints. However, no alternatives, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer sequencing.

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