WIA Wisdom

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: default return is a ~1,500-character excerpt with source links, and full text is gated on a server-owner setting. It does not explain how offset interacts with that truncation, which keeps it from a 5.

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 critical information — the excerpt default and the full-text gating — is front-loaded in one tight sentence. The trailing Korean translation restates the same content without adding semantics, so the entry is slightly larger than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly discloses the return shape (excerpt plus source links) and the condition under which full text appears, which is exactly what an agent needs for a read-only fetch. The remaining gap is the undocumented offset parameter, but overall coverage is solid for a 3-parameter tool.

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 only 33%: path is documented with a concrete example, but offset and max_chars carry no schema description. The description partly compensates by revealing the default ~1,500-character excerpt (matching max_chars' default), yet offset is never explained, leaving a real gap that the low coverage demands be filled.

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 and resource ('Fetch one document by its path') and anchors the identifier's origin to the sibling tool wisdom_search, so an agent can distinguish this single-item fetch from the search that produces the path. No ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

'path (from wisdom_search)' clearly positions this as the follow-up to a search, giving real context for when to reach for it. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer wisdom_search or wisdom_list_pillars instead), so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the shape of the return (per-language document counts plus example topics), which annotations cannot convey, though it omits whether the pillar set is fixed or how counts are scoped.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded: the verb and resource lead, and the returned detail follows immediately. The bilingual duplication restates the same two facts rather than adding one, so it is slightly redundant but costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and partly discharges it by naming document counts and example topics. For a zero-param, read-only listing tool this is close to sufficient, missing only the pillar-set stability and count scoping.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline 4 applies. The schema is an empty object, consistent with the description's stateless listing behavior.

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 ('List') and resource ('the 9 pillars') and even specifies the payload (document counts per language, example topics). The resource is distinct enough from siblings wisdom_get_doc and wisdom_search that the agent can tell them apart, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself 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?

Usage is only implied: a zero-parameter listing tool that returns counts and topics reads as a discovery/browsing entry point preceding wisdom_search or wisdom_get_doc. It never says when to prefer this over the siblings or what prerequisites exist.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the corpus size and composition (227/227 documents across nine pillars) and the return shape (titles, short snippets, source links), which is not present in any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the return-shape sentence earns its place. The bilingual restatement is slightly redundant for an English-reading agent but is defensible for a deliberately bilingual tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully covers the return format, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance (limit semantics, pillar filtering behavior) and no routing guidance against the two sibling tools.

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 50%: query has an example and pillar is annotated 'optional filter', while lang and limit are documented only by enum/default. The description compensates partially by spelling out the nine pillars in readable form and flagging the English/Korean search duality, but it says nothing about limit or how results are capped.

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 (Search) and resource (227 EN / 227 KO curated wisdom documents) and enumerates the nine pillars covered, so the scope is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself explicitly from siblings like wisdom_get_doc or wisdom_list_pillars, which an agent must infer from the tool names alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the implicit 'search by keyword' framing, which the agent has to infer.

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