get_wiki_page_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It merely states the action without any information about return value, errors, permissions, or side effects (though it is a read operation). With no annotations, the description is insufficient; it does not explain what happens if the slug is invalid or what the response contains.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriately front-loaded and free of fluff. It likely earns its place, though it could include more detail. It is not verbose, so it scores high, but not perfect because it lacks the extra information that would make it truly helpful.

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 tool is a simple getter with an output schema, complex behavior is not expected. However, with no annotations and minimal description, the burden is on the description to explain what the response includes and any potential errors. The output schema likely provides return structure, but the description does not mention that or any prerequisites like project existence, so completeness is low.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema ('URL slug of the wiki page' and 'Project ID or path'). The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but given high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify the format of the slug or project_id.

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 'Get a single wiki page by slug.' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (a single wiki page) and the key identifier (slug). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_wiki_pages_tool' which lists pages, and 'create_wiki_page_tool' which creates. However, it does not explicitly mention the project_id context, but that is covered by the schema.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools, it is ambiguous whether to use this for reading a page versus list_wiki_pages_tool or get_file_tool. No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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