taiga_wiki_get_by_slug

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a wiki page,' implying a read operation, but does not describe the return format, potential errors, authorization needs, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimal transparency even for a simple getter.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter getter with no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of the response structure or when to prefer this over taiga_wiki_get, leaving a small but notable contextual gap. These missing details would help an agent select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters (slug and project), so the description adds little semantic value. The phrase 'by slug and project' simply restates the parameter names. Baseline 3 applies because the structured data is sufficient.

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 identifies the action ('Get'), resource ('wiki page'), and the lookup approach ('by slug and project'). It is distinct from likely siblings like taiga_wiki_get, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or differentiate by ID, so it falls 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_wiki_get or taiga_wiki_list. The description merely states what it does, leaving it to the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name and sibling tools.

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