add-wiki

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that registration enables reading/editing and notes optional bot credentials, but it omits key details such as side effects (e.g., persistence, overwriting existing entries), error conditions, or whether the action requires special permissions. The description is thin on what actually happens during registration.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds value. The first states the purpose, the second explains how to use the added wiki. No wasted words or redundant details.

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 simple registration role and 4 parameters, the description covers the essentials: what it does and how to proceed. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks information about expected outcomes (e.g., whether it returns an ID or success message) and potential pitfalls (e.g., duplicate names). It is adequate but not thoroughly complete.

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% for all four parameters, each with a clear description (e.g., 'Base URL of the MediaWiki instance'). The description adds little beyond paraphrasing: it refers to 'wiki base URL' and 'optional bot credentials,' which duplicates schema info. It does not provide examples, formatting rules, or additional semantics, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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: 'Register a new MediaWiki instance so you can read and edit its pages.' It uses a specific verb ('Register') and a distinct resource ('MediaWiki instance'), setting it apart from sibling tools like remove-wiki and list-wikis. It also explains the follow-up usage, reinforcing its unique role.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: 'Register a new MediaWiki instance... After adding, use the wiki name in other tools' "wiki" parameter.' This implicitly tells agents to add a wiki before invoking read/edit tools. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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