wirk_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for an 11-parameter tool. It discloses one useful trait — fallback to 'containing every word when ranking is unavailable' — but says nothing about pagination (limit/cursor), byte capping (max_bytes), depth of returned data, or whether the operation is read-only.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is efficient, but the telegraphic semicolon-clause style is dense and hard to parse on first read, and the mode-to-parameter mapping is left implicit.

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 zero-required, eleven-parameter multi-mode query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. Key behaviors — paging, result shaping via depth/format, and the meaning of workspace_id — are entirely undocumented.

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 36%, and the description compensates for just three of the eleven parameters (fetch, about, receipt) — all of which the schema already documents. Sort, depth, limit, cursor, format, max_bytes, and workspace_id remain unexplained anywhere.

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 enumerates four concrete capabilities — fetch by ref (ID/short ID/exact title), list with fields, semantic search over 'about' words, and receipt lookup — so the agent knows exactly what the tool can do. It never names or differentiates itself from siblings like wirk_show or wirk_status, which likely overlap on the fetch behavior.

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?

Usage is only implied through the mapping of verbs to parameters (fetch → 'fetch', list → 'fields', search → 'about', lookup → 'receipt'). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing away from wirk_show/wirk_status despite apparent overlap.

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