get_wiki_page

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. "Get" implies a read, but it says nothing about permissions needed, behavior on missing wiki/page, whether content is truncated, or the returned format — all relevant for a content-fetch tool.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, which is structurally clean. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification, so it is efficient rather than appropriately sized for a four-parameter tool.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to explain behavior, yet it offers one bare sentence. An agent cannot tell what the content looks like, how pagePath is resolved, or what happens across project/organization scoping.

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 (wikiId, pagePath, projectId, organizationId) are already documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get the content of a wiki page"), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_wikis, list_wiki_pages, search_wiki, or update_wiki_page, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The agent is not told how this differs from search_wiki (which may return snippets) or list_wiki_pages (which returns paths).

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