search_all_projects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It satisfactorily conveys that the tool performs a global search, returns ranked matches with owning IDs, and is suited for generating wikilink citations. It does not explicitly describe side effects or state that it is read-only, but for a search operation the behavior is sufficiently clear.

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 three short sentences with every sentence carrying meaningful information: the first sets the scope, the second defines the output, and the third gives concrete usage cases. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful picture of the return format (project id and slug for wikilinks). It doesn't enumerate the full JSON result structure or clarify behavior for extreme cases, but it is enough for an agent to decide to use the tool and know what to expect.

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 parameters already have accurate descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds contextual value for the project scope (esp. crossProjectOnly) but does not provide additional detail beyond what the schema already documents, so it stays at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search'), names the precise resource ('the user's wiki'), and emphasizes the scope ('across EVERY project, not just the current one'), which strongly differentiates it from project-scoped siblings like search_in_project or search_wiki. It also explains the main output (ranked matches with project id) and the intended wikilink format, leaving no doubt about what the tool does.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: for 'have I seen this' queries and for proposing cross-project bridges during ingest. The contrast with the current project is implicit through 'not just the current one', but it does not name an explicit alternative or provide 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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