wiki_outdated

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns pages needing re-ingestion and that it reacts to source file modification/deletion, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the return format, team_id isolation behavior, or any side effects.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with only two parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and trigger but leaves the return structure vague ('pages' could mean paths, IDs, etc.). It does not mention prerequisites like having run wiki_ingest, but this is likely implicit.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema's own descriptions of repo_path and team_id, which are already clear.

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 a specific verb ('find'), resource ('wiki pages'), and scope ('whose source file has changed since the last ingest'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like wiki_ingest (which performs the ingest) and wiki_search (which searches content).

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 clearly implies the use case: identifying wiki pages that need re-ingesting after source changes. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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