wiki_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' statement is largely redundant. The description does add one genuine behavioral detail not in annotations: shared scope adds per-contributor counts, which changes the return shape. No mention of cost, auth, or caching, so it is adequate but not rich.

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, zero filler, and the metric list is front-loaded ahead of the sibling routing. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by enumerating the four metric categories plus the shared-scope variation. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only exact output shapes remain unstated.

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 scope and agent_id fully, including the default and the ignore rule. The description adds only the per-contributor-counts effect of shared scope, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?

The description names the resource (wiki) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: pages, index entries, recent activity, health score. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wiki_lint, which computes the underlying problems. A specific verb is implied rather than stated, but an agent can identify this as a read-only stats tool without opening the 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?

It explicitly names an alternative and the condition that selects it: 'To see the problems behind the score use wiki_lint.' That routing is clear. It lacks any when-not to use this tool or prerequisites, but for a simple read-only stats call that is a minor gap.

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