Search wiki

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the algorithm (SQLite FTS5 BM25 + local CPU vectors), the fusion method (RRF), the deduplication behavior ('best hit per page'), and the exact return fields. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction against annotations.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core behavior, return format, and mode guidance with no filler. The most important scoping information is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: algorithm, result granularity, and return fields. The remaining parameters are fully documented in the schema, so their omission is acceptable. It could be slightly more explicit about result ordering or overall response shape, but k and the stated return fields carry most of that burden.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining what the mode enum actually does: bm25 for exact term matching, vector for semantic paraphrases, and hybrid as the default fallback. It does not need to restate schema-documented parameters.

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 names a specific verb (search), a resource (the wiki), and the concrete retrieval strategy: hybrid BM25 + vector search with Reciprocal Rank Fusion. It also states the per-page output shape, making the tool clearly distinguishable from siblings like wiki_list_pages or wiki_read_page.

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 actionable guidance: use mode='bm25' for exact terms, mode='vector' for semantic paraphrases, and hybrid otherwise. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling alternatives, such as when to prefer wiki_list_pages instead, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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