search_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals non-obvious behaviors: title matches outrank body matches, single-word prefix matching, multi-word query syntax, control-character delimiters in excerpts, and a 404 for missing/inaccessible wikis. This goes far beyond typical descriptions and equips the agent with critical operational knowledge.

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?

Every sentence in this description earns its place. It opens with the primary purpose, then details matching behavior, excerpt formatting, source of the wiki UUID, error behavior, and an alternative tool reference. There is no fluff or repetition; it's information-dense yet still scannable.

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 the tool's complexity, lack of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, query syntax, response formatting, error semantics, parameter provenance, and the sibling alternative. The only nominal gap is a detailed return structure, but the description adequately covers the highlighted excerpt behavior.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains `wiki_uuid` as an identifier from `list_wikis` and gives a rich explanation of `q` semantics: prefix matching for single words, quoted phrases, excluded terms, and OR. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema constraints.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search inside ONE wiki, returning matching pages with a highlighted excerpt.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling `search` tool by scoping to a single wiki and later naming the alternative. This is a model of purpose clarity.

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 gives explicit usage context: when to search within a single wiki, and directly states an alternative: 'To search tickets and wikis together across a whole workspace, use `search` instead.' It also mentions that `wiki_uuid` comes from `list_wikis`, providing a prerequisite chain. This clearly guides tool selection.

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