wiki_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results include title, slug, summary, and content snippets, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, sorting, or the read-only nature beyond the implied 'search' verb, leaving some behavioral details unspecified.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence: search action first, then the resource and return format. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It doesn't include example queries or result ordering, but the information is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters (kb_id, limit, query) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the 'full-text query' phrasing, which aligns with the existing schema.

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 and resource: 'Search wiki pages by full-text query'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like wiki_read_page (specific page lookup) and hybrid_search (search across multiple resource types), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 clearly implies usage for full-text searching of wiki pages. It provides context but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like hybrid_search. Still, the intended use case is evident from the phrasing.

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