get_wikipedia_page_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'quick summary' and 'lighter version', hinting at performance or output brevity, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or what 'lighter' entails (e.g., truncated content vs. full metadata). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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 with two short phrases: 'Get a quick summary of a Wikipedia page' and 'lighter version of get_wikipedia_page_info'. Every word earns its place by stating purpose and providing a key comparison, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at a sibling comparison, but lacks details on behavior, parameters, or output expectations. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited for effective agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention any parameters explicitly, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. However, with 3 parameters (page_title, language, sentences) and default values provided in the schema, the baseline is 3 as the schema handles basic documentation, but the description adds no value to clarify usage or semantics.

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's purpose: 'Get a quick summary of a Wikipedia page' specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('summary of a Wikipedia page'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_wikipedia_page_info' by calling itself a 'lighter version', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'search_wikipedia_pages'.

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 some usage guidance by comparing to 'get_wikipedia_page_info' as a 'lighter version', implying this tool is for simpler, quicker summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_wikipedia_page_sections' or 'search_wikipedia_pages', nor does it mention 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.