wiki_read_section

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully documents that heading matching is a case-insensitive substring and that the call is cheaper than a full page read, but it says nothing about behavior when the heading does not match, whether multiple matches are possible, or what the response contains.

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 short sentences, no waste, with the core action stated first and the cost/alternative rationale second. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (a section), how the heading is matched, and when to prefer it. The main gap is failure/edge behavior (no match, ambiguous match) and the undocumented slug parameter.

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 only 50%: 'heading' has a description while 'slug' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does add value by clarifying the case-insensitive substring matching semantics for heading, but it leaves slug's meaning (the page identifier) entirely to inference.

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) and resource (a single section of a page) plus the lookup key (heading), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling wiki_read_page. An agent can distinguish it from wiki_read_page and wiki_search without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule — 'prefer it when you need one section' — and names the alternative (wiki_read_page) along with the reason (cheaper). It stops short of stating the when-not case explicitly (i.e., use wiki_read_page for whole pages or wiki_search when you don't know the heading), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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