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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'browse.' It does not explain that the tool likely returns a hierarchical structure, respects max_depth, or any side effects (none expected). The agent gains no insight into what happens during invocation.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence that gets to the point quickly with no filler. However, it is so concise that it sacrifices necessary detail; it could be expanded while remaining efficient.

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?

Given a simple tool with two parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description should at least explain what 'browse' means (e.g., 'list immediate children up to a depth'). The current description leaves the agent guessing about the tool's behavior and output.

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?

The description mentions 'by node id,' hinting at the 'node_id' parameter, but it ignores 'max_depth' entirely. With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema field names.

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 the verb 'Browse' and resource 'wiki tree' with the key parameter 'node id,' making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not specify what 'browse' returns (e.g., children, subtree) or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_tree_path' or 'search_in_subtree,' so it lacks full differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, or error behavior. It does not explain what happens if multiple parameters are provided or if no matching document is found.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the main action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it slightly under-specified.

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?

Given the tool has three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too vague. It does not specify whether inputs are mutually exclusive, what output format to expect, or edge cases like multiple matches.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond listing the parameter names. It does not explain the formats, constraints, or precedence among the three optional parameters, leaving the agent to guess how to use them correctly.

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 clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'tree path for a document', and specifies three input methods (path, title, source page ID). This differentiates it from sibling tools like browse_tree or inspect_concept, which have different purposes.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this is preferred over browse_tree or search_in_subtree, nor does it provide any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits. It does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has side effects. The term 'inspect' is vague and offers no transparency.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. It is under-specified, omitting functionality, parameter expectations, and return behavior. Brevity here hinders usefulness.

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?

Given the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain output format, parameter syntax, or when to prefer this tool over related ones like inspect_entity or read_document.

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?

The schema has one required parameter 'name' with no description, and the tool description adds no information about what constitutes a valid name (e.g., identifier, title, exact match). Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent without any semantic guidance.

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 clearly states the tool inspects a concept from the wiki concept registry, specifying the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like inspect_entity or read_document, which could lead to confusion about scope.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_in_subtree or read_document. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'inspect', implying a read operation, but does not disclose safety, permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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?

The description is a single, very short sentence. It is concise but lacks structure, such as a summary of behavior or parameter hints. Nevertheless, it contains no 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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what the inspection returns or how the entity is identified, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description also fails to explain the 'name' parameter, leaving its format or meaning unclear.

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 it inspects an entity from the wiki entity registry, providing a clear verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish between this tool and the sibling tool 'inspect_concept', which likely has a similar purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'inspect_concept' or 'browse_tree'. The description lacks any context for decision-making.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'read', implying a non-destructive operation, but fails to specify authentication requirements, conflict resolution if multiple identifiers are provided, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information for a simple read tool.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter guidance, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what is returned (e.g., full document content vs. metadata), how errors are handled, or how to choose between this and sibling tools like 'search_in_subtree'. The description is too terse to be fully operational.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning over the schema by stating parameters are identifiers ('by path, title, or source page ID'). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not elaborate on each parameter's format, valid values, or precedence when multiple are given. It partially compensates but remains vague.

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 explicitly states the action ('read'), the resource ('wiki document'), and the allowed identifiers ('path, title, or source page ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_wiki' or 'browse_tree' which have different purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or best practices for choosing among the three identifiers. It simply states what the tool does without contextual advice.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose, omitting whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with action but lacks resolution. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; a few more sentences would improve value without losing brevity.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how parameters relate to the 'overlapping wiki tags' concept, nor what the return format or pagination (if any) looks like. The agent lacks sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 0%, meaning the parameters (path, title, page_id, limit) have no descriptions in the schema. The description does not mention or explain any parameter, failing completely to add meaning. The agent is left to guess how to use path, title, and page_id for finding overlapping tags, or what limit controls.

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 'Return documents with overlapping wiki tags' indicates a specific verb (return) and resource (documents based on tags). It is somewhat clear but does not differentiate from siblings like search_wiki or inspect_entity, which might also return documents. The phrase 'overlapping wiki tags' is ambiguous—does it mean documents that share at least one tag with the input, or exact match? This lack of precision keeps it from a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., search_wiki, browse_tree). There is no mention of when not to use it, nor any alternatives. The agent receives no context for choosing this tool over others for finding related documents.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining effects on existing data, whether it's destructive, or any side effects.

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?

The description is very concise at one sentence, but it lacks structure and depth. It sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about the reload operation's impact and when it is appropriate to use. It is insufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable.

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 clearly states the tool reloads wiki markdown and registry files from disk. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools that browse, inspect, or search.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says it searches inside a tree node. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and fails to provide necessary details about the tool's behavior or parameters.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is extremely incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool, what it returns, or when to use it, leaving significant gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. The meaning of ancestor_id, query, or optional fields is not clarified, leaving the agent with no guidance.

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 clearly states the tool searches only inside a selected tree node, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wiki (general search) and browse_tree (browsing).

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?

The description implies usage when you want to restrict search to a subtree, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic search function without disclosing behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, read-only nature, or what the response contains.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no superfluous words, earning its place.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks crucial context about parameter semantics, return format, and usage scenarios, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description does not map the mentioned search fields to the actual parameters (query, doc_type, year, solution, limit) or explain their meaning, adding minimal value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool searches wiki documents by multiple fields (title, path, tags, body text), differentiating it from siblings like browse_tree or read_document.

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 usage for searching wiki documents but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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 states the tool returns counts but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness, or whether it requires authentication. The description is minimal but not misleading.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's function with no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is nearly complete. It could optionally mention the return format or scope, but it is adequate.

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 are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter info, but per guidelines, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4.

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 clearly states the tool returns document and registry counts for the current wiki, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like browse_tree and inspect_concept which are for navigation or inspection.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, why use wiki_stats instead of search_wiki? No context or exclusions provided.

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