related_documents

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.