ado_wiki_get_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's read-only nature is not new. However, it adds valuable context beyond annotations: the required PAT scope (vso.wiki) and the exact returned fields (Markdown, URL, last updated, version). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences clearly front-load the purpose and key details. Zero fluff, no repetition of schema information. The auth requirement and output structure are compactly included.

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 simple read operation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it fetches, how to identify the page (path), the required auth scope, and the return fields. It does not mention error handling or edge cases, but these are not critical for a straightforward GET. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by listing the return contents.

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% and all parameters (path, wikiId, project) are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a definite resource ('a single Azure DevOps wiki page'), and the key discriminator ('by its path'). It also lists what is returned (content, URL, date, version), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ado_wiki_list_pages or ado_wiki_update_page, which are list/update operations.

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 when a specific page's content or metadata is needed, given a known path. It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., 'use ado_wiki_list_pages to enumerate pages'). The context is clear but the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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