Search Project Content

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds valuable behavioral context like effect 'read', error handling scenarios, and the fact that projection watermarks are returned separately. Minor omission: no mention of pagination or limit behavior.

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 structured into clear sections, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. Though somewhat verbose, it remains focused and well-organized.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, guidelines, requirements, error handling, and follow-up actions. The only gap is parameter documentation, but overall it provides a solid understanding of the tool's role.

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 only 25% (only projectId has a description). The description does not elaborate on the meaning or usage of parameters like limit, includeObjects, or query, leaving the agent without sufficient detail to use them correctly.

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 clearly states the tool performs exact/lexical search across authorized wiki pages and continuity object revisions, explicitly distinguishing it from narrower tools like get_wiki_page or get_continuity_object.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do not use when' conditions, along with requirements (authenticated API authority, selected project), offering clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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