wiki_read_page

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral context. 'Read' implies a safe, non-mutating operation and it discloses that output includes metadata and sources, but it does not cover permissions, missing-page behavior, or other operational traits.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; it states purpose, scope, and notable output contents efficiently.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description identifies what is returned (metadata and sources). It stops short of documenting failure modes or output structure, but is largely sufficient 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?

The schema already documents the single required slug parameter at 100% coverage, including an example. The description repeats 'by slug' but adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Read), resource (wiki page), and scope (one full page by slug), plus output contents. It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like wiki_read_section, so sibling differentiation is only implied by 'full page' rather than stated.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over wiki_read_section, wiki_search, or wiki_list_pages. The description only defines the operation, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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