get_wiki_pages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully explains the dual operational modes (listing vs. retrieving specific pages) tied to the optional parameter. However, it fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, what format content is returned in (markdown/HTML), or error handling behavior when pages/projects don't exist.

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 consists of three efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first establishes scope, the second explains the dual functionality, and the third provides use-case context. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste words.

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 simple schema (2 parameters, no nesting, 100% coverage) and lack of output schema, the description provides adequate context for basic usage. However, it could be improved by describing the return format (e.g., whether it returns raw markdown, HTML, or a structured list) since no output schema exists to document this.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description aligns with the schema by explaining that omitting page_slug results in listing all pages, while providing it retrieves specific content. It adds minimal semantic meaning beyond the schema itself but confirms the behavioral mapping of the optional parameter.

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 identifies the resource (wiki pages from CERN GitLab) and the actions (list all or retrieve specific content). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_content and get_project_readme by specifying 'wiki' specifically. However, the initial verb 'Access' is slightly vague, though clarified by 'list' and 'retrieve' in the second sentence.

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 provides implied usage context ('Useful for accessing project documentation that lives in the wiki'), suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling documentation tools like get_project_readme or get_file_content, and does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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