mediawiki_get_images

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 only a RETURNS summary, which is largely redundant given an output schema exists, and says nothing about pagination or the practical effect of the limit cap. Adequate but not additive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one line, followed by tightly labeled USE WHEN, PARAMETERS and RETURNS blocks. Every sentence carries information and the sectioning makes it scannable without padding.

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?

For a read-only, single-resource fetch with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, trigger conditions, parameter recap and return summary. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates 'title: Page name (required)' and 'limit: Max images (default 50)', both of which are already fully specified in the schema, and it omits the 'max 500' bound and the rationale parameter entirely. No meaning is added beyond the 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 first line states a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Get all images and files used on a wiki page.' An agent immediately knows what it retrieves. It stops short of a 5 because it never contrasts itself with a sibling (e.g., get_external_links or get_page), so sibling disambiguation is left to the agent.

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 concrete user phrasings ('what images are on X', 'show files used in the article', 'list media on this page'), which clearly anchors the trigger context. It provides no exclusions or named alternatives, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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