adtk

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 mentions the wiki is 'markdown-native' which adds useful context about content format, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether operations require specific permissions, if delete_page is irreversible, what happens with concurrent updates, or what the tool returns. For a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately concise with two parts: a general purpose statement and an action list. Every element serves a purpose, though the action list could be more structured. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, but the action enumeration is somewhat dense.

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 this is a multi-action tool with mutation capabilities (create/update/delete), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, authentication requirements, or the relationships between actions. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists the same action values and mentions 'markdown-native' which relates to the content parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide additional parameter insights.

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 manages Azure DevOps wiki pages and lists specific actions, providing a specific verb ('manage') and resource ('Azure DevOps wiki pages'). It distinguishes from siblings like manage_boards or manage_repos by specifying wiki operations, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but offers no context about prerequisites, when to choose specific actions, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like manage_projects or manage_work_items. The agent must infer usage from action names alone.

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