Wiki search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format, the namespace bias, and the HTTP-only nature. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, though 'works without the game running' strongly implies it. This is a minor gap for a search tool.

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 tightly composed of three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage context, and technical details/return format. No verbose or redundant language is present.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, constraints, and the exact return shape. The inclusion of result count and snippet details provides sufficient operational context without an output schema.

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 already fully describes the single 'query' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no new information about parameter syntax or semantics, merely restating that it searches. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's sufficiency.

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 searches the Dwarf Fortress wiki for candidate article titles and cleaned snippets. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as a discovery/disambiguation step before wiki_lookup, with a specific namespace bias.

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 explicitly names the alternative (wiki_lookup) and specifies this tool is a precondition for it. It also adds a practical constraint (pure HTTP, no game required) that helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate.

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