read_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. It conveys that this is a read of existing content and gives the path format via example, but says nothing about failure modes (missing page), permissions, or what the returned content looks like. For a low-risk read tool this is acceptable but thin.

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 naming the verb, resource, and required argument, with an example parenthetical that earns its place. Nothing extraneous, though it is minimal rather than exemplary.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials needed to invoke it. The only mild gap is undisclosed behavior when the path does not exist.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example ('notes/example-note.md') that clarifies the relative-path format and extension convention beyond the schema wording, providing marginal added meaning.

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 ('Reads'), a clear resource ('the content of a wiki page'), and the required input ('given the relative path'), including a concrete example. It implicitly contrasts with write-oriented siblings (write_page, append_note) but never names them explicitly.

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 choose this tool over siblings like list_pages or search, nor any prerequisites. An agent must infer that read_page fetches one known page while search finds pages. No when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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