Check wiki links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description reinforces that with "reports and changes nothing." It adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the exact result keys and, critically, that orphans and broken_links are capped at 50 each, which tells an agent the output may be truncated rather than exhaustive.

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 operation and findings, then the return shape, then the safety note, then routing to alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the title or name.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the return JSON fields and the 50-item cap, so an agent knows what it will get back. Combined with read-only annotations, nothing needed to call this 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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline applies. It does implicitly confirm the scope is the whole wiki/ tree with no filtering options, which is the only parameter-adjacent fact an agent would need.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Check the link structure of wiki/") and then defines both findings precisely: orphan pages as those with no inbound [[wikilinks]] (with index/overview/log explicitly exempt) and broken [[wikilinks]] pointing to no page. This is far more specific than the title and lets an agent distinguish it from sibling review tools like wiki_confidence or wiki_lifecycle.

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 timing triggers ("after wiki_sync or before publishing") and names the alternative tools for a different job ("wiki_lifecycle or wiki_confidence to review page quality"). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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