get_wiki_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral aspects. It only states that the output is complete wikitext, but does not mention error handling, required permissions, or any quirks. This is a minimal disclosure for a retrieval tool, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus a one-line parameter explanation. Every word adds value, and the structure is clean and front-loaded.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It tells what the tool does, what it returns, and what the parameter is. The lack of explicit usage guidance is a minor gap, but overall it is sufficient for this level of complexity.

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 description explicitly documents the 'title' parameter as 'Título exacto del artículo' (exact article title), which adds clarity beyond the schema's generic 'title' string. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description successfully compensates for the missing parameter detail.

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 'Wikitext completo de un artículo de la Wiki de Tenarius RO' (complete wikitext of an article), which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (full wikitext). The word 'completo' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wiki_summary, which returns a summary.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool returns complete wikitext, so one would use it when full source markup is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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