Browse by tag

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, yet the description adds real behavior: 100-tag cap, 50-page cap, most-used-first ordering, min_count being ignored in tag mode, and plain-text output format. The only thing missing is how the min_count threshold interacts with the 100-tag cap when many tags qualify.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its terminological caveat, then mode-by-mode behavior, then sibling routing. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies result format ('path - title'), size caps, ordering, and sibling alternatives. An agent can call it correctly and predict the response without further information.

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, but the description goes further by documenting the cross-parameter interaction (min_count is ignored when tag is supplied) and the ordering of the untagged listing. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema, though tag format/normalization (case, matching rules) is unstated.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Browse the wiki by tag') and immediately disambiguates terminology ('tags' frontmatter field; 'category' here means tag). It then defines the two distinct modes of operation, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns in each case.

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?

Gives explicit routing guidance: use wiki_entity_search for named things and wiki_query for free-text questions, implicitly reserving this tool for tag-based exploration. The two modes (no tag vs. tag) are each tied to their own output shape.

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