wiki_sql

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does disclose the non-obvious default that calling with zero arguments returns a page listing. It implies read-only behavior via 'search or read' but does not cover pagination, result limits, or how large pages are handled.

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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the tool's identity followed by the mode rules; no filler sentences. The telegraphic 'arg: behavior' style trades a little readability for density, which is acceptable but not maximally clear.

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 two-parameter, zero-required tool with an output schema covering return values, the description covers both modes and the default behavior. It lacks detail on match semantics (substring vs. fuzzy) and what happens when query and page are combined, which are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: query is mapped to term matching and page to a filename.md for full-page retrieval, adding semantics the bare string type does not convey. The one gap is precedence when both parameters are supplied simultaneously.

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?

States a concrete verb pair (search/read) and a concrete resource (the 'sql' wiki topic), and the topic name cleanly separates it from the wiki_git and wiki_python siblings. An agent can identify what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit mode-selection rules: no args lists pages, query=<term> finds matches, page=<filename.md> returns a full page. What it does not do is state when to prefer this topic tool over the git/python siblings, though the topic suffix makes that largely self-evident.

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