mediawiki_check_terminology

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the glossary-driven scope and the exclude_code_blocks rationale ('avoid false positives on code paths'), but omits anything about the default-limit cap interaction or what happens when neither pages nor category is supplied. No contradiction with annotations.

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 purpose sentence followed by tight USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, and RETURNS blocks — no filler. Minor deduction: the RETURNS line duplicates what the existing output schema already conveys, and the parameter block re-lists schema facts.

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?

With six optional parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the agent has most of what it needs: trigger phrases, defaults, and a return-shape sketch. The gap is that no parameters are required and the description never states the behavior when both pages and category are empty or when they conflict.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults, the max-50 limit, and the code-block exclusion rationale. The description's PARAMETERS list largely restates that schema content, adding only the glossary page default value, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Scan pages for terminology violations against a glossary') that is immediately distinguishable from siblings like mediawiki_check_links, mediawiki_check_translations, and mediawiki_find_replace. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

The 'USE WHEN' block gives three explicit user-intent triggers ('check brand terminology', 'find incorrect terms', 'verify consistent naming'), which is strong positive routing. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it (e.g. vs. bulk_replace or find_replace for actually fixing terms).

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