read_wiki_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose exactly what content is included in the response (body, frontmatter, incoming/outgoing wikilinks), which is useful. It does not mention behavior for missing/invalid slugs or note that this is a read-only operation, though 'Read' strongly implies it.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence. The main action and resource appear immediately, with the content breakdown in parentheses adding value without bloat.

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 simple read-by-identifier tool with one required parameter, the description covers the input, the operation, and the returned content. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit content list, though error behavior and page-not-found handling are not mentioned.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single slug parameter with an example, so the description adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('wiki page by slug') and explicitly enumerates what content is returned: markdown body, frontmatter, and wikilinks. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_wiki or find_related, which do not retrieve full page content.

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 correct use case: when you already know a page's slug and want its full content. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to prefer this over search_wiki or find_related, leaving the decision partially to inference.

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