mediawiki_find_orphaned_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries less burden. It adds that the tool returns a 'List of orphaned page titles', which is useful but not extensive behavioral detail.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured with clear sections (USE WHEN, PARAMETERS, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, usage cues, and parameter details. It lacks mention of maximum limit (schema says max 200) but is otherwise complete for a simple read-only tool.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats parameter info but adds minor context (e.g., default namespace 0, limit default 50). Baseline 3 is appropriate as it does not significantly extend schema meaning.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Find pages with no incoming links from other pages'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mediawiki_get_backlinks (which finds backlinks for given pages) and mediawiki_search.

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 description provides a 'USE WHEN' section with example user queries ('find orphan pages', 'which pages have no links'), which guides the agent on appropriate invocation context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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