wiki_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that results are ranked excerpts with a status, implying a non-destructive read. It does not state whether search is read-only, how ranking works, or how limit interacts with ranking, leaving meaningful gaps for a zero-annotation 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the return behavior placed second. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it omits needed detail rather than wasting space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, but for a 4-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what prefix does or whether status filters results.

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 explain all four parameters, and it does not. 'Titles and content' hints at query scope, but limit, prefix, and the status filter are entirely unexplained — and 'status' in the description most likely refers to a returned value, which conflicts confusingly with the status input parameter.

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 specific verb (search) and resource (note titles and content) plus what it returns (ranked excerpts and status). It is clearly a search tool versus siblings like wiki_read or wiki_capture, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'search' naturally precedes 'wiki_read', but the description never says when to search versus read directly, nor when to use wiki_context or wiki_review_queue. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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