infra_parse_wiki

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the output format (list of sections with title and content), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or prerequisites like page existence.

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 extremely concise: two short, informative sentences. Every word adds value, stating the action and the output format. No unnecessary details or fluff.

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 simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure. However, it lacks contextual details such as whether the wiki page must exist, error handling, or any performance considerations.

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 single parameter 'title' already has a clear schema description ('Wiki page title'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Given 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'parse', the resource 'wiki wikitext', and the output 'structured sections'. It also specifies the return format (list with title and content), distinguishing it from the sibling tool infra_read_wiki which likely returns raw text.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like infra_read_wiki. The tool name and description imply parsing, but without stating that raw reading should be done via infra_read_wiki, the agent lacks decision support.

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