wiki_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an important trait: it is registered even when the wiki is disabled, similar to an HTTP status route. This gives context about availability and what the tool can reveal, which is sufficient for a status check 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?

The description is two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded clearly in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a meaningful caveat about disabled state without unnecessary elaboration. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the essential purpose and the notable behavior about disabled state. It could mention what the response looks like, but for a simple status tool this is sufficient.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description correctly omits parameter details. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and no additional explanation 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Show wiki layer status' with specific contents (page counts, recent lint issues). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'status' by focusing on the wiki layer, and the name reinforces this specificity.

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?

It explains a key usage context: even when the wiki is disabled, this tool remains registered so callers can read the disabled state. This implies using this tool when you need wiki status regardless of enabled state, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'status'.

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