MinecraftWiki_searchWiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool's limitations (complex queries won't work), best practices for usage (search for basic names first), and its role in a multi-step workflow. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format details, which could be useful for an agent.

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 well-structured and concise, with three sentences that each serve a clear purpose: stating the tool's function, outlining limitations, and providing a usage workflow. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 (a search function with one parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral constraints effectively. However, it lacks details on the response format (e.g., what the search returns) and error cases, which could enhance completeness for an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'query' clearly documented as a search term. The description adds semantic context by specifying what types of queries work best (basic entity/structure/etc names) and what doesn't (complex queries), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose as searching the Minecraft Wiki for specific types of content (structures, entities, items, or blocks). It uses the specific verb 'search' with the resource 'Minecraft Wiki' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like getPageSummary and getPageSection by being the entry point for basic searches.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for basic search terms like item/block/structure/entity names) and when not to use it (for complex queries like 'loot table of X' or 'how to craft Y'). It also outlines a workflow with alternatives, directing users to first use this tool, then getPageSummary, and finally getPageSection for specific content.

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