Search Wiro documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read-only operation. The description does not add further behavioral context such as result format, pagination, or any caveats about searching. With the safety profile covered by annotations, the description's minimal addition is acceptable but not enriching.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, clear scope), the description is complete. An output schema exists, so explanation of return values is unnecessary. The description fully conveys what an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool for documentation searches, and there are no missing critical details.

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 single parameter 'query' is fully described in the schema with concrete examples (e.g., 'how to upload a file', 'websocket'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add any additional semantics or usage details beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule, with full schema coverage, this is a reasonable score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and clearly identifies the resource: 'official Wiro guides, API references, examples, and how-to documentation.' This is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_models, which searches models. An agent can immediately know what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 states what it searches but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative tool routing. While the resource scope implies usage for documentation queries, there is no explicit guidance, so an agent might need to infer context from sibling names. This is adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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