Get Wiki Page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Get a wiki page', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention what is returned, how version or render_html affect the response, or any other behavioral details. This is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it quickly scannable.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the optional parameters (version, render_html) affect the result. For a get-type tool, the description is too sparse to be fully complete, especially given the absence of behavioral details and usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides; it simply restates the project context. Baseline 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 action ('Get a wiki page') and the resource context ('for a given project'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like gitlab_list_wiki_pages by indicating a single-page fetch, but it does not explicitly mention it retrieves by slug or provide deeper specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gitlab_list_wiki_pages for listing). The context is minimal; it only says 'for a given project', so there is no explicit usage direction or exclusions.

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