rms_wiki_pack

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the vault or code index are modified), authorization needs, or rate limits. The 'refresh_code' parameter hints at a potential write action but is not explained.

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 sentences, zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded and every word adds value. No redundant phrasing or padding.

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 an output schema, the description should explain the return material format or structure. It only says 'Returns material', which is vague. For a tool that generates a pack, an agent needs to know what to expect (e.g., a path, file list, or structured data) to use the output effectively.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema by framing the pack as 'for an agent to create human-readable documentation', but does not clarify how parameters like 'refresh_code' affect output. Schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 generates a 'wiki context pack' from vault and code index, distinguishing it from siblings like search or read tools. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'wiki context pack' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rms_search or rms_code_search. It does not state prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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