wiki_page_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which the description echoes with 'Read-only'. However, it adds no new behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as error handling or default redirect behavior.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key trait ('Read-only') and concisely states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words.

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 presence of a full output schema (not shown but stated as present) and 100% parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete for a simple read operation. It lacks some behavioral details like error cases or default redirect handling, but overall it suffices.

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%, and the description merely restates the concept of 'slug' as path without domain, which is already in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for 'fields' or 'raise_on_redirect' beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 action ('получить страницу') and the resource ('по slug'), with a specific definition of slug as path without domain. This distinguishes it from siblings like wiki_page_get_by_url which uses a full URL.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wiki_page_get_by_url or wiki_page_resolve_id. Usage is implied (for reading a page by slug) but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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