get_wiki_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. It explicitly states 'Read', indicating a non-mutating operation, and adds useful behavioral details: title is case-sensitive and version=0 means most recent. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple read operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact: a one-line purpose followed by a clean Args list. No wasted words, and the format is easy to scan. It includes only essential behavioral notes (case-sensitivity, version semantics) that add value.

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 (3 params, 2 required, read-only), the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (page content), how to target a page, and optional version. An output schema exists, so return details need not be in the description. Minor omissions like potential errors or page-not-found behavior are acceptable for a read 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds vital meaning. It explains all three parameters: project_identifier (though brief), title (with example and case-sensitivity note), and version (with '0 = most recent'). This goes beyond the schema's type-only definitions and helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 'Read the content of a specific wiki page' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (specific wiki page), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_wiki_pages (list) and create_or_update_wiki_page (write). It is specific and unambiguous.

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 context: use it to retrieve the content of a specific wiki page. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives or mention exclusions, but the read-only purpose and target are obvious from the description and name. There is no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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