Read wiki page

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

Description aligns with readOnlyHint=true and adds useful default-behavior context beyond the annotation: the full file including frontmatter is returned when no extra args are passed. It also clarifies inclusive line ranges and section scoping, which annotations alone would not convey.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the core action and uses a semicolon-separated list to cover all behavioral modes. Every word earns its place with no 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-only tool with fully documented parameters, the description sufficiently covers return behaviors (full file, section, line range, frontmatter inclusion). Minor gaps remain: no stated behavior for conflicting parameters (section + startLine/endLine) or for missing headings, but these are edge cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented individually. The description adds value by explaining how parameters interact to select the output mode (full page vs section vs line range), which the static parameter descriptions do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a wiki page') and enumerates three distinct retrieval modes (full file, section, line range). It is distinguishable from siblings like wiki_read_log and raw_read by the 'wiki page' resource, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it is not.

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 mode descriptions imply when to use each argument form (no args for full content, section for a heading, startLine/endLine for ranges), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over wiki_search, raw_read, or wiki_read_log. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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