Wiki Read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says nothing about error behavior for missing pages, permissions, or whether output is paginated/cached. The 'plain text' note is the sole behavioral hint and is partly redundant with the output schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves gaps that some added structure could have filled.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still missing is sibling differentiation and failure-mode context, leaving it minimally complete for a tool with 15+ near-name siblings.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including '0 = whole page, N = only section N' and the pointer to wiki_get_page_sections. The description's 'section number' wording adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('wiki page') plus the output format ('as plain text'), and the section caveat clarifies scope. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like wiki_get_page or wiki_get_page_summary, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives despite a crowded wiki_* sibling set (wiki_get_page, wiki_get_page_summary, wiki_get_page_sections). The only conditional ('With a section number...') describes parameter behavior, not tool selection.

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