wiki_lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'changes nothing' mostly restates structured data. The description does add value beyond that: it discloses the return form ('returns a report') and that shared-scope auditing also validates the frontmatter schema. Minor gaps remain about report contents or any cost/size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the audit action and its defect categories, followed by scope behavior and the sibling pointer. No filler or hedging; every clause carries information.

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 side-effect-free audit tool with no output schema, an agent knows what it checks, what it does not change, and which scope to pick. The only real omission is the shape of the returned report (sections, severity fields), which would help an agent parse results, but that is a modest gap given annotations cover the safety profile.

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 both parameters (scope, agent_id) are already fully documented, including the namespace SoT caveat. The description's scope="shared" sentence largely duplicates the schema text and says nothing about agent_id, so this is the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Audit) and resource (the wiki) plus the exact defect classes checked: orphan pages, broken links and stale pages. It also disambiguates from the closest sibling by noting 'Totals only: wiki_stats', so an agent can separate auditing from aggregate counting without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear condition for the scope parameter's non-default path (scope="shared" audits the shared wiki and its frontmatter schema) and routes totals-seeking callers to wiki_stats. It stops short of saying when an agent should lint versus rebuild (wiki_rebuild_fts) or dedup (wiki_dedup), so the alternative mapping is partial rather than exhaustive.

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