read_wiki_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the core behavior (reading content) and adds 'existing' to indicate it does not create pages. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior for missing pages, or any permissions/rate-limit implications beyond the token in the schema. Basic transparency for a read operation, but lacking depth.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant information. It is appropriately minimal 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?

The tool has four required parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description explains what the tool does but does not describe the return value (e.g., content format, metadata), error conditions (e.g., page not found), or when to use it alongside siblings. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is sufficient for a basic read, but it lacks some completeness.

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 all four parameters (owner, repo, token, pageName) are already described at the schema level. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('GitHub wiki page'), and adds 'existing' to clarify it does not create or modify. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like write_wiki_page, append_to_wiki_page, delete_wiki_page, and list_wiki_pages.

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 'existing GitHub wiki page' implies the tool is for reading pages that already exist, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives, nor does it mention that list_wiki_pages could be used to discover page names. Usage context is implied by the tool name and sibling set, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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