Wiki overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds the return format (plain-text Markdown) and the concrete confidence thresholds (>=0.8 high, <0.5 low) that the agent could not infer elsewhere. It stops short of noting whether results are cached or how large a wiki is practically handled, but for a zero-parameter aggregate read the disclosure is strong.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents, then the return format and safety profile, then the routing advice. Every clause carries distinct information and none repeats the title verbatim.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by enumerating the metrics returned and the Markdown format. For a parameterless read-only aggregate, nothing an agent needs to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters, so per the baseline this starts at 4. The description correctly reinforces "no parameters," preventing an agent from inventing filtering arguments, though there is nothing further to document.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope ("Overview of the whole wiki in one call") and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: total page count, pages per type, per lifecycle state, and confidence buckets. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like wiki_confidence and wiki_lifecycle, which it names as the drill-down tools.

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?

States both when to call it ("Call it first to see the wiki's size and health") and which alternatives to use for follow-up detail (wiki_lifecycle, wiki_confidence for page lists). Ordering guidance is explicit rather than inferred.

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