MinecraftWiki_getPageContent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving 'raw wikitext content,' which hints at read-only behavior, but does not disclose critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format of the returned content (e.g., plain text, structured data). This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions, which are important for an agent to use the tool effectively. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'title' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('raw wikitext content of a specific Minecraft Wiki page'), distinguishing it from siblings like getPageSummary (which likely provides processed content) or getPageSection (which retrieves only part of a page). It precisely communicates what the tool does without redundancy.

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 implies usage for retrieving raw wikitext, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPageSummary (for summaries) or getPageSection (for specific sections). It provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or named alternatives.

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