validate_wiki

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full transparency burden. It does not explicitly state if the tool is read-only or has side effects. The list of checks implies non-destructive scanning, but safety profile is not confirmed.

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?

Concise, well-structured with a summary line and bullet-style parameter list. No redundant information or filler.

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?

For a validation tool, description comprehensively lists all checks. Output schema exists, so return format is not needed. Only 2 parameters with clear descriptions. Complete for the intended use.

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?

Parameters are well explained: 'path' to optionally scope to a single page, 'limit' for maximum findings. With 0% schema coverage, description fully compensates, making parameters clear.

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?

Description starts with a clear verb ('Check') and specific resource ('wiki'), followed by a detailed list of conformance problems. This easily distinguishes from sibling tools focused on reading, searching, or indexing.

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?

Description implies validation context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings. However, the listed checks clearly indicate it's for detecting broken links, duplicate slugs, etc., which contrasts with read/search tools.

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