search_wiki

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely drops it. It does not say whether matching is full-text or title-only, how results are ranked, that results are paginated, what facets are returned, or that omitting projectId triggers an organization-wide search (only the schema hints at that).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally clean. It is arguably too terse for a seven-parameter search with a nested filter object, but no wording is wasted.

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?

With seven parameters, a nested filters object, no annotations and no output schema, a one-line description leaves real gaps: result shape, facet semantics, pagination behavior, and permission/scope behavior are all unexplained. The schema covers parameter meaning, but nothing covers what the agent gets back or how to iterate.

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 top, skip, includeFacets, projectId and organizationId are all documented in the schema itself; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and, notably, does not mention that projectId is optional and widens scope when omitted.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Search") with a specific resource ("wiki pages") and a scope ("in a project"), which is far better than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling search tools such as search_code or search_work_items, so an agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than search_code, search_work_items, or the listing tools get_wikis/list_wiki_pages. No prerequisites, no mention of when a keyword search beats browsing the wiki tree.

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