get_wisdom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Load relevant wisdom' but does not specify if it is read-only, if there are side effects, or what happens when no wisdom is found. This lack of transparency could lead to incorrect assumptions about its behavior.

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 description is relatively concise, with the main purpose stated first, followed by a structured workflow. The workflow list is clear but could be shortened without losing meaning. Overall, it is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 has 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains the intended usage but does not cover return value details or edge cases (e.g., multiple parameters, no results). It provides a good starting point but lacks completeness for a complex 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing how parameters fit into a workflow (e.g., using file_path and keyword in sequence), but it does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 loads wisdom and provides a workflow for using it. It specifies the resource (wisdom) and verb (load). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_project_overview, which may cause slight confusion.

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 provides a clear recommended workflow: overview first, then drill down by file path, then search by keyword. This gives explicit guidance on when to use different parameter combinations. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the workflow is instructive.

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