wiki_get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states the tool returns '完整 Markdown 内容和元数据', indicating a read operation with no side effects. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic getter nature.

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 sentence that is clear and concise. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is simple (single parameter, getter), and the description covers purpose and output. However, it lacks details on error handling or whether the Markdown is raw or rendered.

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%, and the description does not add any meaning to the single parameter 'doc_id' beyond what the schema provides (type: integer, required). The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 action ('获取'), resource ('指定文档'), and what is returned ('完整 Markdown 内容和元数据'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like wiki_list_children (listing children) and wiki_search (searching).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. Usage is implied (to retrieve full content and metadata of a specific document), but no exclusions or mentions of alternatives like wiki_export_document.

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