redmine_wiki_get_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation via 'Get', but it does not describe the response format, whether content is raw wiki markup or rendered HTML, what happens when the page is not found, or any authentication/permission requirements.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and the resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter read operation.

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 tool with only two required parameters and full schema coverage, this is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not clarify the format or structure of the returned page content, which leaves a meaningful gap for an agent trying to interpret the result.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well, including examples and the underscore convention for titles. The description adds only 'by page title' and 'from a Redmine project', which provide no significant meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('wiki page content'), and the key routing criteria ('from a Redmine project by page title'). This distinguishes it from siblings like redmine_wiki_get_index, redmine_wiki_put_page, and redmine_wiki_delete_page without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 by the description: an agent should select this tool when it needs a specific wiki page's content and already knows the page title. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as redmine_wiki_get_index for listing pages, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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