get_wiki_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it attempts the wiki endpoint first and falls back to a synthesized node-shape for non-wiki tokens. It also reveals the exact return fields, which is crucial for an agent using the output in subsequent 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 a single, efficient paragraph of three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details outputs, and the third covers input flexibility. No redundant information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers input, output, behavior, and fallback logic comprehensively. It fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 the parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds valuable nuance: the specific token formats (wikcnXXX, docxXXX) and that full URLs are accepted. This goes beyond the schema's generic description, earning a 4.

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, listing the types (docx/bitable/sheet/mindnote/file) and the returned fields (obj_type, obj_token, space_id). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling wiki tools like create_wiki_node 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 tool accepts various input forms (bare wiki node token, underlying obj_token, or full URL) and uses fallback logic, implying its use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving a minor gap.

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