Wikipedia: Get Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a summary and supports multiple languages, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what constitutes a 'summary' (e.g., length, format). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details (language support and default). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and output details, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that 'title' is for the Wikipedia article and 'lang' specifies language with a default of 'en', which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail parameter constraints (e.g., valid language codes) or usage nuances, leaving some gaps.

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 with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('Wikipedia summary'), and identifies the key input ('given title'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'wiki_multi', but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 usage for Wikipedia summaries and mentions language support, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'wiki_multi' or 'search_web'. The context is clear but lacks comparative or exclusionary advice.

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