mediawiki_get_category_members

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral details, but does not contradict annotations. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value beyond the structured fields.

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 with clear sections (purpose, usage, parameters, returns). Every sentence is informative with no wasted words. The structure is well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has a moderate parameter count (5, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (mentioned in context), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return value, leaving no gaps for an agent to understand how to use it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description section provides additional context for each parameter (e.g., 'Category name without "Category:" prefix') that adds meaning beyond the schema's descriptions (which say 'with or without'), earning a 4.

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 'Get all pages that belong to a specific category' and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'mediawiki_list_categories' by explicitly stating 'NOT FOR: Listing categories themselves (use mediawiki_list_categories).' This provides a specific verb and resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicit 'USE WHEN' examples and a 'NOT FOR' clause naming the alternative tool, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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