mediawiki_audit

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description warns that the 'external' check is slow, and states default checks exclude 'external'. This adds valuable behavioral context.

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?

Description is well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, RETURNS), uses bullet points for checks, and is concise with no superfluous text.

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?

Most aspects are covered: when to use, what checks do, return format. However, it omits explanation of optional input parameters (rationale, pages, category) and how the health score is derived, though output schema may cover return format.

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%, but description adds meaning by listing check values with descriptions and providing default/limits for 'limit' parameter. It does not repeat schema details for optional parameters like 'rationale' or 'pages'.

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 'Run comprehensive wiki health audit with multiple checks' and enumerates specific check types (links, terminology, orphans, activity, external). It returns a health score and recommendations, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on single checks (e.g., mediawiki_check_links).

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' trigger phrases are provided (e.g., 'run health check', 'audit the wiki'). It lists check options, implying when to use which, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool in favor of a more specific sibling tool.

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