Lint the wiki

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it returns categorized issues, each issue carries a fix, and results are paginated at 30 per call with offset for continuation. This is useful operational context for a diagnostic tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the categories, then the pagination rule. No filler; every clause conveys distinct information.

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?

With no output schema and a read-only annotation, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back. It does this by listing issue categories, noting each has a fix, and specifying result pagination. Minor gaps remain (e.g., ordering or severity), but an agent has enough to call it 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 both parameters (sandbox_id, offset) are already documented. The description adds the page-size constraint ('30 per call') and the purpose of offset ('use offset for more'), which is genuinely additive, but sandbox_id semantics are left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the operation precisely ('Health check' / lint of the wiki) and enumerates the specific issue classes it detects: broken links, bad frontmatter, uningested sources, orphan pages, stubs, etc. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like wiki_read, wiki_search, and wiki_list, which retrieve content rather than audit it.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Health check' – an agent can infer this is the tool for auditing wiki integrity rather than reading content. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over wiki_status or wiki_list, nor any preconditions or when-not guidance.

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