get_wiki_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens when the page or version is missing, whether auth or project access is required, or how large the text payload can be.

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?

A single short fragment, so there is no padding, but this is under-specification rather than true conciseness. It is front-loaded but does not carry the information an agent needs for a three-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 output schema, three parameters, and low schema description coverage, the description should carry more of the load. It omits error behavior, version discovery, and any distinction from the wiki listing sibling, leaving clear gaps for a retrieval tool.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'project' is documented), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'version' selects an older revision rather than the current one, which adds real meaning over the bare integer schema, but 'title' remains undocumented and the version semantics stay vague (how to discover valid versions).

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 is a noun fragment ('A wiki page with its text, optionally an older version') rather than a verb+resource statement, but it does convey the resource retrieved and the key content (page text plus version selection). It gives no differentiation from the sibling list_wiki_pages, so an agent must infer that this fetches a single page.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as list_wiki_pages for browsing versus this tool for fetching one page. The optional version is hinted at but the condition for choosing it is never stated.

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