get_wiki_page

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

The description explicitly states 'Returns (instant, read-only): ... No side effects.' and describes error modes as dicts with examples. It also clarifies that content can be null if the page hasn't been generated, which is crucial behavioral context. Since no annotations are provided, the description fully compensates.

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 well-structured with clear sections (disambiguation, when to use/not use, prerequisites, return format, error modes). While slightly verbose, each sentence adds value and the structure aids comprehension.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and having a complex context with sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, return format (with output schema referenced), error modes, and prerequisites. The null content behavior is explicitly documented, leaving no significant gaps.

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 input schema already describes both parameters with thorough descriptions (channel_id required, page_type enum with defaults). The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond restating the enum values and default. With 100% schema coverage, a score of 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and specifies the resource: 'one pre-compiled wiki page from the LEGACY fixed-page set (overview, faq, decisions, people, glossary, activity, topics)'. It explicitly lists the seven fixed page types, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools like read_wiki_page which handles slug-keyed wiki pages.

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 provides explicit guidance: use for 'a quick structured summary of a known aspect of a channel without running the QA pipeline', and not to use when needing a specific answer (use ask_channel) or non-fixed wiki topic (use read_wiki_page). It also mentions the prerequisite channel_id from list_channels, and notes that content is null if page not generated (run refresh_wiki first).

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