wiki_lire_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the name—no auth requirements, no return format, no pagination or error behavior. It adds essentially zero value beyond structured fields.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw itself.

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?

For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter explanations and any return or permission context, leaving the agent with little beyond the annotations and parameter names.

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% and the description does not mention the two required parameters (wiki_id, page_id). The names are somewhat self-explanatory, offering a faint implicit mapping, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Lit une page de wiki' (reads a wiki page). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'wiki_lister' (which lists wikis) and from other 'lire' tools by naming the wiki domain. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives beyond the resource noun.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this tool is chosen when a specific wiki page ID is known, but the description offers no routing context.

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