unmanned_find_page

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses case-insensitive matching, the possibility of multiple results, and that IDs are returned. However, it leaves unclear whether matching is exact or partial and what happens if no page matches.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The most important behavioral constraints are front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational value.

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 single-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the main use case, the non-uniqueness warning, and the natural follow-up action with unmanned_read_page. It does not specify the return format beyond ids or empty-result behavior, but the essential invocation is clear enough.

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 gives no description for the label parameter, so the description compensates by indicating that label is a page name. The case-insensitivity note adds meaning, but the description does not clarify whether this is a full-name match, substring match, or how formatting is normalized.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'Find pages by name', making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The case-insensitive detail and the pointer to unmanned_read_page help distinguish it from the broader set of page-related siblings.

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?

It gives clear usage context: search by page name, then feed the returned IDs into unmanned_read_page. It also warns that a name may belong to many pages, so the agent should not assume uniqueness. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name a direct alternative.

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