get_wiki_page_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the types of data extracted and notes a behavioral limitation (no requirement adjudication). However, it does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or output characteristics, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the primary action and listing content elements. The second sentence adds a key limitation. It is efficient with no redundancy, though some structure (e.g., separating parameter info) could improve clarity.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should explain output format and parameter effects. It only lists extracted elements but not how they are returned or how parameters affect the result. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool behavior.

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%, yet the description adds no explanation of parameters (url, pageId, includeHtml). It does not clarify that either url or pageId is required, or what includeHtml does. The description only lists extracted content without linking to parameters.

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 retrieves Wiki page evidence context, listing specific elements (body text, title structure, tables, links, images, etc.). It also clarifies what it does NOT do (requirement adjudication). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like fetch_wiki_page, though the context extraction focus is implicit.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving context from a Wiki page, but does not specify when to use it vs alternatives like fetch_wiki_page or search_wiki. It mentions a limitation ('does not make requirement adjudication') but lacks explicit use-when or when-not guidance.

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