mediawiki_get_recent_changes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds what results look like (timestamps, users, summaries) and aggregation behavior. It does not mention pagination or default limit explicitly, but parameter descriptions cover that. 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded purpose, and 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?

For a tool with 8 parameters (none required), 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides a thorough explanation of when to use, what returns, and parameter behavior, covering nearly all aspects an agent needs to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's PARAMETERS section summarizes the parameters but adds little beyond the schema, except for a clarifying note about aggregate_by being recommended for large result sets.

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 recent changes across the entire wiki' and distinguishes from siblings like mediawiki_get_revisions and mediawiki_get_user_contributions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 and NOT FOR sections, naming specific alternative tools (mediawiki_get_revisions, mediawiki_get_user_contributions) for when not to use this tool.

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