Wiki manual

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that it takes no arguments and what topics the content covers, which is genuinely useful for deciding to open it. It stops short of describing output format or length, so it stops at 4.

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?

Three short sentences with the imperative cue front-loaded and the content inventory packed into one clause. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 no-arg, no-output-schema documentation tool the description covers purpose, ordering, and content scope adequately. Only minor gaps remain, such as the return shape or size of the manual.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is high, and the description explicitly confirms 'No arguments', removing any ambiguity about invocation. No further parameter meaning is needed.

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 and resource (read the manual / current tool instructions) and enumerates the contents: ingest/query/lint workflows, page rules, a worked example, and every tool. The phrase 'Read this FIRST' plus the pointer to wiki_edit_page mode="patch" makes its role distinct from the sibling operation tools.

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?

'Read this FIRST' gives an unambiguous ordering cue relative to all siblings, and it routes a specific case (small edits) to wiki_edit_page mode="patch". There is no explicit when-not condition, but for a zero-argument manual tool that omission is low-cost.

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