wikijs_repository_status

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

With no annotations, the phrase 'Show current...status' does convey a read-only, non-mutating operation, which is transparent at a basic level. But it adds no detail about what 'documentation status' includes, whether initialization is required, or what side effects might exist.

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?

One short sentence that leads with the action verb and the object, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple status tool.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation to complete the picture, so the description should explain what the status output actually contains. It only offers the vague phrase 'documentation status' and does not cover prerequisites, expected return values, or how this relates to sibling status/context tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, the schema is empty, and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied by the schema. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 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 uses the verb 'Show' and identifies the resource as current repository context and documentation status, so an agent can tell it is a status/read tool. However, it does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools like wikijs_get_context, wikijs_detect_context, or wikijs_workspace_status.

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?

No guidance explains when to use this tool rather than the many sibling context/status tools. The description only implies a status-check purpose and gives no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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