wiki_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains the return content (methods, descriptions, DLC badges, wikilinks), giving the agent an idea of what to expect. However, it does not disclose error behavior for missing pages or any potential side effects, though the tool is clearly a read operation. The description carries most of the burden but leaves some edge cases uncovered.

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?

Two sentences: first states the primary action and resource, second lists the return contents and gives a usage hint. No redundant or filler text. Information is front-loaded and every sentence contributes 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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, but the description explains the return value (full page with methods, descriptions, DLC badges, wikilinks) and provides usage context. It omits details about failure modes but for a simple read tool, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with examples, so the schema already documents the 'page' parameter well. The description reinforces that the tool reads 'by name', but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource ('Isaac API wiki page by name'), stating exactly what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing full page retrieval, whereas wiki_search, wiki_list, and wiki_stats serve different purposes.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to 'Use wiki_search first to find the right page name', which clarifies the intended workflow. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the sequencing hint is strong actionable context.

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