wiki_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only statistics operation and names the returned metrics, but does not disclose response format, authentication needs, or any potential limitations. This is adequate for a simple stats tool, but not richer than necessary.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's action and resource, then enumerates the key statistics. Every word adds value, with no repetition of the name or filler.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the knowledge base is, what statistics are provided, and that it includes a generation date. It is sufficiently complete for a simple stats tool, though it could optionally mention whether output is a single object or an array.

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, and the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by specifying exactly what statistics are generated, which the schema cannot convey. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description meets that bar by providing functional context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: getting statistics about the compliance knowledge base. It lists specific metrics (article counts, word counts, domains covered, generation date) and is distinct from sibling tools which handle queries, searches, articles, and compliance checks.

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 implies this tool is for obtaining aggregate statistics, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_articles or search_wiki. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, leaving the usage context to inference.

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