redmine_get_wiki_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns page metadata (author, dates, parent page) and raw page content, and importantly notes that the instance uses standard Markdown instead of textile. This gives the agent a clear picture of the output format. It does not mention permissions, error behavior, or pagination, but for a read-only get operation this is acceptable.

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 concise, consisting of just three sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by return value details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 that there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains what the tool returns (metadata and raw content) and includes a note about Markdown formatting. It also provides prerequisite guidance. While it could mention error scenarios or the exact response structure, the information included is sufficient for a simple page-fetching tool with well-documented parameters.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds a small amount of extra context by suggesting using redmine_list_wiki_pages to find page titles, which aids the 'page_title' parameter. However, it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers, so a 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the full content of a specific wiki page in a Redmine project.' It uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (wiki page), and mentions the project context. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list pages or handle other entity types, making the purpose 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 an explicit usage guideline: 'Use redmine_list_wiki_pages first to find page titles.' This tells the agent the prerequisite workflow and indirectly indicates when to use the sibling listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other get tools, so it stops short of full alternatives coverage.

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