taiga_get_wiki_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' hints at a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about return format (markdown vs HTML), error behavior for a nonexistent slug, or project scoping requirements.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain what 'full content' looks like and why project_id is required alongside a slug. Neither is covered, leaving the agent to guess at behavior and return shape.

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 50%: 'slug' is documented in the schema and merely echoed in the description, while 'project_id' is undocumented in both places. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and leaves the required project scoping unexplained.

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 ('Get') and resource ('wiki page') and adds scope ('full content'), which implicitly distinguishes it from taiga_list_wiki_pages (which returns page summaries). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to use this versus taiga_list_wiki_pages (to discover slugs) or taiga_search/taiga_resolve_ref. The description never says that a slug must first be obtained from the list tool, nor what to do when a slug is unknown.

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