mediawiki_get_user_contributions

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds that it returns a list of pages with timestamps and summaries, and mentions default/max limits, which complements annotations without contradicting them.

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 (USE WHEN, NOT FOR, PARAMETERS, RETURNS), concise without unnecessary words, 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 is read-only with output schema available, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, and return value, making it fully complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'default 50' for limit) but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states 'Get all edits made by a specific user' with a clear verb-resource combination. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by saying 'NOT FOR: Page-specific history (use mediawiki_get_revisions). Not for wiki-wide activity (use mediawiki_get_recent_changes).'

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 includes a dedicated 'USE WHEN' section listing example user queries and a 'NOT FOR' section with explicit alternative tool names, providing excellent guidance on when and when not to use.

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