get_wiki_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses input flexibility, fallback mechanism, and return values. It implies a read-only operation but does not detail auth or rate limits, nor explicitly state side-effect-free behavior. Still, it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value. No redundancy or irrelevant details.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains return values and input flexibility. It lacks error handling or prerequisites, but is largely complete for typical usage.

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% but the description adds rich semantics: accepted token formats, fallback to synthesized node-shape, and the ability to accept URLs. This significantly enhances understanding beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 tool resolves a wiki node token to its underlying object (docx, bitable, etc.), specific verb and resource, and includes return fields (obj_type, obj_token, space_id). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_wiki_nodes or search_wiki.

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 explains the various input formats accepted (bare token, obj_token, URL) and the fallback behavior, giving clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like search_wiki.

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