Get a Redmine project wiki page

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: required view_wiki_pages permission, possible HTTP 401/403/404 responses, and confirmation that no Redmine data is changed.

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 dense sentences front-load the core action and endpoint, then cover parameter constraints, include options, permissions, error behavior, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no elaboration. The description covers endpoint, parameters, permissions, error cases, and scope limitations, making it fully adequate for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the 'safe nonempty' title constraint and noting that the only documented include is attachments, which reinforces the schema enum without repeating it verbatim.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Read one current project wiki page') and names the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_project_wiki_page_version by stating it does not read historic versions.

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 gives clear context about what this tool retrieves and explicitly excludes historic versions, which routes agents away from the version endpoint. It does not explicitly name the alternative, but the exclusion is concrete enough for correct selection.

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