codewiki_search_wiki

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

Given no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: uses Gemini chat, caches for 2 minutes, typical response size 0.5-5 KB, rate limit 10 calls per 60s per repo URL, and how repo_url is resolved. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections and bullet points, front-loaded with purpose. A few words could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 no annotations, this description covers all essential aspects: usage, alternatives, caching, rate limits, parameter details, and response size. Output schema exists, so no need to describe return values. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: explains repo_url formats (URL, shorthand, auto-resolve) and that query is optional with default. Still, could elaborate on query best practices.

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's function: 'Ask Google CodeWiki a question about an open-source repository.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'codewiki_read_contents' by specifying its purpose for asking questions vs reading content.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when not to, with a direct alternative ('For reading wiki content directly, use codewiki_read_contents instead'). Also includes caching and rate limit details that help the agent decide.

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