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 burden. It states 'Get' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose error behavior, return format, or any side effects. The description adds the two identification modes, which is useful but minimal.

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 wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and the two identification modes.

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 simple getter with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It covers the main usage, though it could be slightly more explicit about the exclusivity of the two identification methods (e.g., 'either page_id or project_id + slug'). No output schema exists, so return format does not need to be detailed.

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 meaningful relationship information: that page_id is an alternative to project_id + slug, which is not explicitly stated in the schema properties. This clarifies the valid parameter combinations.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('wiki page'), and clearly identifies two identification methods (by ID or by project + slug). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like taiga_get_issue and taiga_list_wiki_pages.

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?

The description implies when to use this tool: when you have either a page ID or a project/slug pair to fetch a single wiki page. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear from the verb and resource.

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