mediawiki_audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds valuable context: it returns health score (0-100), detailed results per check, and recommendations, and notes that 'external' check is slow. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, RETURNS). Every sentence provides unique value. No redundant or vague phrasing.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on input and behavior. It covers all necessary context for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds further detail: explains the 'checks' parameter options with defaults (default all except external), and clarifies 'limit' default and max. This adds meaning beyond schema.

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 it runs a comprehensive wiki health audit with multiple specific checks (links, terminology, orphans, activity, external). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mediawiki_find_broken_internal_links or mediawiki_check_terminology by being an all-in-one audit.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE WHEN: User asks run health check, audit the wiki, check wiki quality.' Provides clear context for invocation. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is strong.

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