wikijs_search_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention matching semantics (partial, fuzzy, exact), case sensitivity, indexing lag, locale handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a meaningful gap for a search 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?

The description is one concise sentence that clearly communicates the core function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant phrasing relative to what the schema already provides.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and parameters are fully documented in the schema, but the description offers no information about result format, search behavior, or when to use it among the many page-related siblings. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps an agent would need to resolve.

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 schema already documents query, path, and locale. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('pages'), and qualifier ('by text content'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like wikijs_list_pages, but the text-content qualifier provides reasonable differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as wikijs_list_pages or wikijs_get_page. There are no exclusions or conditions described, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and description.

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