mediawiki_get_wiki_info

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 externally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that — no note on caching, freshness, or why an idempotent-looking read is flagged non-idempotent — so it earns only the minimum-plus credit.

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?

Four short labeled lines, front-loaded with purpose before usage and return shape; nothing is wasted. The 'PARAMETERS: None' line is slightly redundant against a schema that carries one optional field, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this tells the agent everything needed: what it returns, when to call it, and that it takes no input. Nothing material 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (rationale) is fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's 'PARAMETERS: None' is a mild imprecision since an optional rationale exists, but it adds no meaning 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get information about the wiki itself') and the RETURNS line enumerates the concrete payload (name, version, statistics). The resource is clearly distinct from page-level siblings like mediawiki_get_page_info or mediawiki_get_page_summary, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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' line gives three concrete user phrasings ('what wiki is this', 'wiki statistics', 'MediaWiki version') that map cleanly to this tool. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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