wiki_get_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of disclosure. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of two token types adds useful scope. However, it does not describe error behavior, permissions, or any other edge-case traits.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the purpose without superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and token types, but with no output schema, it does not explain the structure of the returned details. It also lacks information about prerequisites beyond having a token, which may be sufficient for a straightforward get operation.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including an enum and descriptions. The description adds minimal extra value by restating that tokens can be of two types, which is already implied by the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'get node detailed information' via a wiki node token or document token. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like wiki_list_nodes (listing) and wiki_get_space (getting space), as it focuses on retrieving details for a single node.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: when you have a wiki node token or a document token to fetch node details. It explicitly mentions both token types, which helps distinguish from similar tools, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it.

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