wiki_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the operation is a search and that it is scoped to one agent's wiki, which implies a read-only action. However, it does not describe result-ranking behavior, matching semantics, or side effects beyond what the name and schema already suggest.

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 that states the core purpose without filler. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

This is a straightforward search tool with an output schema and self-describing parameter names. The one-line description covers the core semantics and scope, though a sentence about when to prefer this over wiki_read or agent_index would make it fully complete. The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values.

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 is the only place that could explain parameters, and it does not explicitly do so. The parameter names are self-explanatory enough that agent_id, query, and limit can be inferred, but no additional detail about query format or interpretation is provided.

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 names a specific operation, full-text search, and a specific resource, one agent's wiki, which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_read, wiki_write_concept, and list_agents. There is no ambiguity about what this 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?

The phrase 'within one agent's wiki' implies a scope constraint and suggests using this tool when search is needed, but it never states when to prefer wiki_search over alternatives such as wiki_read or agent_index, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage context is only implied rather than explicit.

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