search_wiki

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, whether it searches full text, whether it synthesizes answers, limitations, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that 'answers questions'.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but the brevity sacrifices clarity. It does not provide enough information to be adequately helpful, so it scores mid-range.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It only says it answers questions from a local wiki, giving no context about result format, performance, or typical use cases. This is minimally viable but lacking.

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 input schema has zero description coverage and only one parameter 'query'. The description does not add any semantic detail about the query beyond the vague implication that it is a question, failing to explain expected format, language, or scope.

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 states a specific action ('answer a question') tied to a resource ('the local wiki vault'), and the name 'search_wiki' supports this. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'add_document' and 'lint_wiki' by implying a retrieval/QA function, though 'answer' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, and does not reference sibling tools. It merely states what the tool does.

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