Get wiki page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that it returns a wrapper with a WikiPage model and that project_id/slug are required, but says nothing about format_type/render_html/with_content behavior or content rendering.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single clear sentence, but the docstring-style Args/Returns/Raises block is partly boilerplate and the Args section is uninformative ('**kwargs: Additional parameters'). It is reasonably short but the structure wastes lines on generic sections.

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?

With 12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain key inputs like with_content and format_type that materially change the result. It does not, so an agent cannot reliably decide how to call it beyond supplying project_id and slug.

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% across 12 parameters, so the schema carries no meaning and the description must compensate — but it only names project_id and slug via the kwargs example. The remaining ten (format_type, render_html, with_content, version, branch, etc.) are undocumented anywhere, leaving the agent to guess.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get information about a specific wiki page'), which is clear enough to distinguish from mutations like create/update/delete_wiki_page. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, gitlab_get_wiki_list, leaving the read-single-vs-list choice implicit.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus gitlab_get_wiki_list, gitlab_update_wiki_page, or the GraphQL alternatives. The only guidance is a Raises section noting MissingParameterError when project_id or slug is absent, which is a precondition rather than usage direction.

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