Get a wiki page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: updatedAt is a conflict checkout stamp (not just a timestamp), contentTruncated indicates body cut off, and specific permissions (manage:pages and read:source) are required. This goes well beyond a minimal description, though it stops short of detailing error handling or a complete return schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by critical caveats (conflict stamp, truncation, permissions). Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description explains key return fields (updatedAt, contentTruncated, content), the identifier alternatives, and permission requirements. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though a fully exhaustive return field list is not included.

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 already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the exactly-one-of rule and locale semantics. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond reinforcing that path requires locale, 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 specifies the exact action ('Fetch a single ok-wiki page') and the two lookup modes (numeric id or path+locale). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling list/search tools by emphasizing 'single' page retrieval with metadata and markdown source.

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 clear usage context: fetch a page when you know its id or path, and pass the result to wiki_update_page to avoid stale edits. It also notes permission prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, though this is implied by the single-page scope.

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