getWikiPage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it returns complete markup and the current version, and requires a known page title. This is useful supplemental detail without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 an output schema present to document return values, and annotations covering safety, the description covers all critical usage aspects: how to discover the title, what the return includes, and the relationship to updateWikiPage. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this correctly.

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 the 'use Wiki for the start page' hint for pageTitle, which is helpful but also present in the schema. No significant extra parameter meaning is provided beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the verb (read), the resource (project wiki page), and the exact scope (complete markup content and current version). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like listWikiPages and searchWikiPages by specifying 'one known project wiki page', implying the caller must already have the exact title.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use this tool: after discovering the title via listWikiPages or searchWikiPages. It also states the returned version is required by updateWikiPage, giving a clear prerequisite and downstream use case. This provides both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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