wiki_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does useful work by declaring the returned payload (body, metadata, hash, links, parents, backlinks), which stands in for the absent output schema. However it says nothing about pagination behavior despite line-range parameters, nothing about permissions or failure on a missing slug, and nothing about whether reads have side effects.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates the returned artifacts with no filler. It is appropriately terse for a read tool, though it leaves no room for the usage and pagination guidance that are missing elsewhere.

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 3-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the return shape well, which is the biggest gap it could have filled. It is still incomplete on input semantics (what a slug is, what the line range does) and on how this tool relates to wiki_search and wiki_context.

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%, so the description is responsible for explaining all three parameters and it explains none of them. 'Body lines' faintly hints that reading is line-oriented, implicitly relating to start_line and max_lines, but the slug format, the meaning of the line window, and the default of 120 lines are all undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (a note) and enumerates exactly what comes back: body lines, metadata, hash, links, parents, backlinks. That is far more specific than a label restatement. It does not name or contrast with siblings like wiki_search or wiki_context, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to choose instead. An agent can infer from the name that this fetches a note by slug while wiki_search finds notes, but that routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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