codewiki_read_contents

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: truncation of full content, section-specific retrieval, pagination details, response size range (2-10 KB per section, 5-30 KB paginated), caching (5 minutes), rate limit (10 calls per 60s per repo URL), and automatic deduplication of concurrent calls.

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, bullet points for pagination and response details, and a separate Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving conciseness despite comprehensive coverage.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema existence, the description covers all needed aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, usage sequence, pagination, caching, rate limits, and response size. No critical gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds rich meaning: repo_url examples and shorthand resolution, section_title optional vs required behavior, offset/limit defaults and max. This compensates fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'View documentation about a GitHub repository from Google CodeWiki.' It distinguishes two modes (with/without section_title) and references sibling tool codewiki_read_structure for navigation, making the purpose and differentiation explicit.

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?

Explicitly advises to use codewiki_read_structure first to see available sections. Pagination usage is clearly explained. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the context is sufficient.

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