Get AiWiki entry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format ('full markdown') and content structure ('mechanism analysis, consequences, best practices, verifiable sources'), but does not mention error handling or language fallback (although the fallback is in the schema). This adds some transparency but not exhaustive detail.

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 two sentences with no filler. The key action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence explains entry content, efficiently using the space.

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 tool's simplicity (id + optional lang, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies what the entry contains and that the output is markdown. It does not discuss edge cases, but for a basic retrieval tool this is acceptable.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying the id is 'as returned by aiwiki_search', linking it to the search tool's output. This enriches the parameter meaning beyond the schema description.

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 specifies the action ('Fetch the full markdown') and the resource ('one AiWiki entry by id'). It also differentiates from the sibling aiwiki_search by indicating the id comes from that search tool.

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 phrase 'as returned by aiwiki_search' provides clear context that this tool is used after searching. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for a simple fetch tool.

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